In his book The Anxious Generation, psychologist and author Jonathan Haidt made a case for mobile phones and social media causing an epidemic of mental illness. The book resonated widely, particularly with parents, and still does. Popular culture has reinforced these fears, with the Netflix series Adolescence vividly portraying the potential dangers of online life.
But the claim that social media is the primary driver of rising youth mental health problems doesn’t stack up. There is good evidence that indicators of poor mental health among young people were already rising before the mass introduction of social media, intersecting with increasing globalisation, unemployment, housing and food insecurity, widening inequity, discrimination, political polarisation, war and climate change. To imply that social media is the cause of increasing mental distress, without regard for the wider social, economic and political environments of our children is disingenuous.
To be clear, there is currently no clear causal evidence linking social media to poor mental health among young people. Much of the research is cross-sectional, meaning it can identify associations but cannot show that social media causes mental health problems. Studies that have found negative effects typically show that these are small, and follow-up research has often produced mixed or contradictory results.
Take one of the most frequently cited studies, by psychologist Jean Twenge and colleagues. It found a link between social media use and depressive symptoms, but the relationship accounted for less than 1 percent of the variation in those symptoms. In other words, more than 99 percent of the differences in young people’s mental health were explained by other factors.
There is no doubt that we should be concerned about certain aspects of social media, including the wider digital environment and AI. Recent lawsuits in the United States and Mexico found major platforms designed deliberately addictive features and exposed young people to harmful content. We agree that digital platforms must be held accountable for their content, with appropriate legislative protections. How we in Aotearoa and other nations respond to these concerns and enforce protections is hotly contested.
Australia’s decision to ban social media for under-16-year-olds from December 2025 has gone from a ‘watch-with-interest’ case, to a global reference point in 2026. A number of countries and states internationally are drawing up plans for a similar social media ban for young people, including France, Denmark, Greece, Austria, other EU member states and the UK. The US doesn’t have a federal ban, but more than 40 states have considered social-media-and-children legislation this year.
A recent New Zealand select committee inquiry into online harms concluded that social media needs much stronger oversight. Its recommendations included tighter accountability for online harm, an independent regulator, bans on ‘nudify’ apps and deepfakes, greater transparency around algorithms, restrictions on advertising, and more investment in education and research. It also backed a social media ban for under-16s.
Most of these proposals make good sense. Except the last one.
We do not support the under-16-year-old social media ban, although we can understand its appeal. Parents quite rightly worry about what their children are exposed to online. Yet banning total access may not produce the benefits many hope for. From a mental health perspective, most young people go online for help first – they seek information, they look up services, they seek support and they like to hear other people’s experiences. Many health professionals are ‘reaching in’ to engage with young people on social media, many of whom might never have asked for help elsewhere.
Most concerning, a ban on social media might inadvertently push young people who are suicidal or being targeted online away from their parents (or other helping adults) because they are afraid that they will get into trouble for being on social media. Early evidence from Australia after it introduced a ban found some parents reported improvements in family relationships and more face-to-face interaction. But around a quarter said their children felt less socially connected or had lost access to peer support networks. A similar proportion reported their children migrating to less-regulated (more dangerous) corners of the internet instead.
Young people themselves have raised similar concerns about a social media ban, that what was designed to protect them could end up increasing isolation and vulnerability for some of those who need connection most. We are concerned that this could disproportionately affect Māori who already have poor access to support. They want to be, and should be, involved in designing solutions that ensure regulation of social media platforms that effectively address potential harms but ensure access to the benefits.
Why then, are governments around the world following Australia’s lead, even as evidence from Australia points to potential, albeit unintentional, adverse outcomes?
To come up with the best solutions, we need to move beyond the binary concept, of social media being either good or bad. The impact of social media (the good, bad and ugly) depends on a range of factors, including how much time young people spend online, the type of content they engage with, their personal circumstances, their digital savviness, and whether screen time comes at the expense of sleep, exercise or face-to-face relationships. Social media can expose young people to harm. It can also provide enjoyment, connection, support and access to information.
This matters because social media is not simply a source of risk. For many young people it is also a source of friendship, community and support. It helps them keep relationships, explore who they are, find information and connect with others who share their experiences. For those who feel disconnected or marginalised in their offline lives, online spaces can provide a sense of belonging that is difficult to find elsewhere.
The challenge, then, is not simply how to keep young people off social media, given we know they are already by-passing the age of the ban for under-13s, but how to make their online environments safer while preserving the fun, connections and support that many rely on.
Policy makers want to respond to public opinion, media attention and parental concerns for young people and the evidence of potential harm, but require real solutions based on evidence, not hype. Banning social media for under 16-year-olds is a blunt instrument, a scapegoat for avoiding more complex social, political and economic problems causing distress among our children, while at the same time not holding social media giants to account and updating legislative protections for all New Zealanders. We urge careful consideration and an examination of the evidence to preserve the mental health and rights of young people.
