Australia is now conducting the world’s largest real-world experiment on children and social media: a nationwide ban for under-16s. Just weeks in, the results already cast doubt on whether this approach can work. While concerns about smartphones and social media harming children’s mental health are legitimate, outsourcing parenting to government through a blunt ban is misguided.
Advocates point to research, popularised by Jonathan Haidt, suggesting social media is “rewiring” children and driving anxiety. But popularity is not proof. Scientists remain unconvinced the ban will meaningfully reduce screen time, and the policy carries the familiar tone of alarmism—we must do something—rather than careful, evidence-based action.
Age restrictions make sense for alcohol, tobacco and driving, but social media is different. Expecting government to replace parental responsibility is bad policy and bad parenting. Predictably, teenagers are already bypassing the rules with fake birthdays, borrowed accounts and second phones. Bans invite challenge, especially from digitally fluent adolescents, creating a futile game of cat and mouse.
More importantly, real learning happens at home. Children absorb values through observation long before instruction. A ban rings hollow when parents themselves are glued to their screens at the dinner table. The deeper problem is a loss of agency caused by platforms designed to hijack attention—affecting adults and children alike.
The solution is not top-down regulation but bottom-up responsibility. Parents are best placed to help children develop healthy relationships with technology by modelling restraint and encouraging agency. Governments cannot legislate attention, and platforms will not restore it voluntarily. If we want children to live well with powerful technology, we must show them that we can step away ourselves. No ban can recover what we have already surrendered; that work must be done deliberately, daily, and close to home.
This was originally posted at Spectator.
