A ban? More effective action is possible

It’s easy to support bans on social media use for children under 16. It is widely known that TikTok, Instagram and other apps are addictive, and that overuse contributes to mental health issues. Protecting children sounds good and rallies political support. However, when one takes time to ask questions, it is less clear that the proposed bans are an adequate or good solution.

Age-based bans

Why age 16? Why not 25, if the rationale is brain development? Research shows that the relevant executive brain functions continue to develop until age 25. I might suggest age 75 since my brain is still developing and I can also become addicted.

What exactly will be banned? Will gaming apps be included? Evidence from some bans indicates that young people switch to equally or more problematic online activities.

Do bans work? While early indications from Australia show reduced use of more common apps, those who work with young people express concerns about diversion to the dark web, which is less regulated or monitored.

There are also unintended consequences. Some youth use social media to find information they need or to reach out for help; they will be left more isolated and anxious.

What happens when a young person reaches the magic age of 16? Are they suddenly mature and competent? At best, an age-based ban is an inadequate solution.

Evolving capacities

Respect for the evolving capacities of children is an important principle in child development. Jesus also practiced it in his ministry with children and in his teaching for adults. It is particularly relevant given the vital role the digital world plays in children’s lives in the twenty-first century. The online world offers opportunities for young people to develop their God-given potential, but it also presents a kaleidoscope of risks. The digital world impacts children even if they are not active users. Learning to navigate the digital world well is a gradual process, different for every child.

The problems of social media use are no longer new. In 2021, helpful guidance, based on extensive research and consultation with young people and adults, was provided by the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child in General Comment 25 on children’s rights in relation to the digital environment.

It is possible to protect children from exploitation while allowing beneficial uses. Designing safety into digital spaces is feasible, as shown in the work of the 5 Rights Foundation, which puts children’s rights and needs at the centre for tech companies, who can and should be held accountable for ensuring that their products are safe by design and default. It is not a surprise that online spaces that are good for children are also good for adults.

Blame the premier

Governments have been slow and reluctant to act. Restricting children is easier than standing up to the large companies that have gained too much control in the digital world and requiring them to respect the rights and needs of children. Bans let governments look like they are doing something, whether or not it is effective. Premier Wab Kinew, who has proposed a ban in Manitoba, is honest when he says it will allow parents to blame the premier when teenagers complain about limits.

Bans are a weak way to support parents if public policy does not require social media platforms to give priority to the best interests of children. What is most critical is teaching digital literacy and responsibility for all ages and actors in the digital world. We regulate paved highways; we can also regulate information highways. The future well-being of children and adults depends on it.

Next steps in Canada

It is unfortunate that the federal government introduced an overly complex bill to address all online harms at once back in 2024. It died on the order paper and important time has been lost. Now a ban seems like an easy solution. Good governance for children requires taking on the tougher task of regulating the information highways that shape their world.