OPINION: Will social ban tackle root causes of parents’ concerns?

There is no doubt that social media can expose young people to harmful content, contribute to an “always on” culture, facilitate bullying, and impact mental health and wellbeing.

Many parents, educators and youth professionals are understandably concerned about the role social media can play in anxiety, self-esteem issues and addictive behaviours.

However, and speaking as someone who runs talks on social media and mental health for parents and young people in schools. I question whether a ban is addressing the root causes of these challenges.

There is a risk that it becomes the simplest policy response, rather than tackling the more complex issue of how platforms are designed and regulated.

If access is removed altogether, there may be less pressure on social media companies to invest in safer platform design, stronger moderation, age-appropriate experiences and greater accountability for the content and interactions that take place on their services.

There are also practical considerations. Many young people are already active on social media, and for parents this could create significant challenges around enforcement and removal.

In addition, the proposed ban would include platforms such as YouTube, which many families use responsibly with parental controls, supervised accounts and age restrictions already in place.

While it is important to reduce exposure to harmful content, we should also recognise that social media and online platforms can provide educational opportunities, creative outlets, social connection and access to supportive communities.

Any restriction inevitably removes some of these benefits alongside the risks.

From a behaviour change perspective, restriction is one potential intervention, but it is not the only one. Education and digital literacy are equally important.

Helping young people, parents, teachers and carers to understand how to use social media safely, critically and positively is likely to deliver more sustainable long-term outcomes.

The challenge is that education requires investment, commitment and ongoing effort from all parties involved.

I would also be cautious about unintended consequences. We do not yet fully understand how a ban might affect young people’s online behaviours, whether it could drive activity to less regulated spaces, or how it may impact those who currently benefit from positive online communities.

Finally, it is notable that WhatsApp has not been included. In practice, many of the safeguarding concerns experienced by young people, including bullying, peer pressure, group exclusion and the sharing of inappropriate images, often occur within private messaging groups rather than through public social media content alone.

This suggests the issue is broader than simply exposure to harmful content and raises questions about whether the proposed measures are targeting the areas of greatest risk.

One potential positive that is perhaps overlooked in this debate is the adaptability of young people themselves.

We often underestimate how resilient, resourceful and adaptable children and teenagers can be. While any significant change to their digital lives is likely to be met with resistance initially, young people have repeatedly demonstrated an ability to adjust to new environments, technologies and social norms.

Overall, I welcome the focus on improving young people’s online safety, but I believe there is a risk that a blanket ban oversimplifies a complex issue.

Alongside any restrictions, we should continue to invest in education, digital resilience, parental support and greater accountability from technology companies.

These approaches may ultimately have a more lasting impact on how young people navigate the online world safely and positively.