Governments are racing to keep kids off social media, but whether those bans will actually improve teen mental health is far from settled, as Katherine Leach-Kemon, Alejandra Martinez and Lara Yeyati Preiss report for Think Global Health. Eight countries have now passed or implemented age-based restrictions. And on August 26, Meta settled with 47 U.S. states for up to $17 billion over claims its platforms harmed children, agreeing to cap teen use at two hours a day and scrap features like infinite scroll.
The urgency is understandable. A study published in The Lancet found the global burden of mental health disorders has more than doubled over the past three decades, with the highest rates among adolescents.
Yet the evidence tying social media to poor youth mental health is mixed. Some research finds a small harm, while other studies find none at all. Cutting teens off also carries risks. “Social cohesion is protective for mental health,” said Damian Santomauro, lead scientist measuring mental disorders for the Global Burden of Disease study.
Nobody knows yet whether these restrictions will pay off like raising the tobacco purchase age to 21, or flop like abstinence-only sex education.
Early results are uneven. In Australia, a government survey found account ownership among 10- to 15-year-olds fell from 52% to 42% under its under-16 ban. Malaysia’s ban let kids slip through and has been pushed back to January 2027, while the U.K. plans to follow in spring 2027.
Related on the SLP
Youth advocates worry about collateral damage. Lucy Thomas, cofounder and CEO of Project Rockit, cautioned that “we inadvertently make some young people more isolated while trying to make them safer.” Others dismiss the bans as performative and argue governments should regulate the tech companies directly rather than leave the job to parents.
For Thomas, the real test isn’t how many accounts disappear. “The more important question is whether young people are actually safer, healthier and more connected,” she said.
