Some question the relationship between social media use and mental health problems, arguing that correlation does not imply causation. Thanks to Australia’s recent ban on the use of designated platforms by under-16s, we’ll soon know who’s right.
Late last year, the Australian Parliament, in response to concerns about the effect of social media on children’s mental health, amended the Online Safety Act to require users to be at least 16 years old to open an account on social media platforms such as TikTok, Snapchat, Instagram and X. The amendment is expected to take effect by the end of 2025.
The law received wide support in Australia, both in Parliament and among the public, but has also been criticized. Some question the relationship between social media use and mental health problems in adolescents. Others see a violation of the right to freedom of expression. Even those who support the initiative wonder how it can be applied.
There is no doubt that the mental health of adolescents, especially girls, has greatly deteriorated since the advent of smartphones and the rise of social media. The digital platforms targeted by the law design algorithms to keep users on their sites, because more clicks translate into more advertising revenue. What’s the score? A Gallup poll revealed that teenagers in the United States spend an average of 4.8 hours a day on social networks.
This is a large portion of a teenager’s free time that could otherwise be spent interacting with friends in person and with real-world places and objects. Jonathan Haidt, social psychologist and author of The anxious generation, has stated that social media platforms have “reconfigured childhood and changed human development on an almost unimaginable scale.”
The intensive use of social networks by adolescents and higher levels of depression and anxiety clearly go hand in hand; What is being discussed is whether it is a mere correlation or a causal relationship. It is difficult to carry out good studies that test whether less use of social networks for sufficiently long periods reduces depression and anxiety, because trials in which adolescents leave a platform while their friends remain on it are expected to produce less benefits, and even harm children who today are isolated from their friends.
It is important that all groups of adolescents reduce their time on social networks at the same time, so that their use is replaced by interaction in the real world. Additionally, other randomly selected control groups would be needed whose members did not reduce social media use. In the absence of tests with this level of rigor, the evidence we have suggest that intensive use of social networks causes anxiety and depression, but they are not conclusive.
Australia may therefore be doing the world a favor by carrying out a national experiment. This assumes, of course, that Australia substantially reduces the time teenagers spend on social media. Policy makers plan achieve your goal imposing heavy fines on companies operating new age-restricted social media platforms if they do not take “reasonable steps” to prevent those under 16 from opening accounts. The law assigns the task of defining what is meant by “reasonable measures” to the Australian eSafety Commissioner, an independent statutory office.
WhatsApp and other similar messaging apps, as well as some online health and educational services, will be exempt from the legislation. Young people will still be able to watch YouTube videos or social media pages, such as those of companies on Facebook, without needing to have an account. Furthermore, the government has announced its intention to introduce new legislation that creates a “Digital Duty of Care” that will place the responsibility on digital platforms to prevent known or foreseeable harm.
Paradoxically, the Australian law may benefit social media executives and programmers who are aware enough of what they may be doing to children’s mental health to feel uncomfortable about it. Given the current lack of regulation, any social media platform that is serious about ensuring that children do not open accounts will simply lose market to less scrupulous rivals. The law creates a level playing field for all platforms, thus overcoming the problem of collective action.
The Australian constitution does not make general statements about fundamental rights. In general, unlike in the United States, the courts accept the supremacy of the elected legislative branch. However, the Supreme Court of Australia has ruled that the provisions of the constitution establishing representative and accountable government mean that Parliament should not place an undue burden on political communication.
A possible answer to those who have suggested What Australian legislation violates this principle is that those under 16 years of age do not vote and, therefore, have less need for political communication. Furthermore, it could be argued that the burden is not disproportionate, because the harm caused by social media is serious enough to justify the modest restriction contained in the legislation. The Australian government could also exempt social media platforms that are limited to political communication, although that would require someone in the government to determine which communications are political and which are not.
Copyright: Project Syndicate, 2025.
www.project-syndicate.org
Add Comment