𝐀 𝐁𝐚𝐧 𝐨𝐧 𝐒𝐨𝐜𝐢𝐚𝐥 𝐌𝐞𝐝𝐢𝐚 & 𝐒𝐦𝐚𝐫𝐭𝐩𝐡𝐨𝐧𝐞𝐬? 𝐋𝐞𝐭’𝐬 𝐓𝐚𝐥𝐤 𝐀𝐛𝐨𝐮𝐭 𝐖𝐡𝐲 𝐓𝐡𝐚𝐭’𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐖𝐫𝐨𝐧𝐠 𝐂𝐨𝐧𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐬𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧

Yesterday, a group of Dutch doctors and scientists released a public letter calling for a ban on smartphones for children under 14, and a ban on social media until 16. I understand the concern behind this appeal—youth health is a real issue—but this proposed solution is reactionary, not evidence-based, and potentially harmful.

Let’s start with the basics: 𝐓𝐡𝐞𝐫𝐞 𝐢𝐬 𝐧𝐨 𝐬𝐜𝐢𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐢𝐟𝐢𝐜 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐬𝐞𝐧𝐬𝐮𝐬 𝐬𝐮𝐩𝐩𝐨𝐫𝐭𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐛𝐚𝐧𝐬 𝐨𝐧 𝐬𝐦𝐚𝐫𝐭𝐩𝐡𝐨𝐧𝐞𝐬 𝐨𝐫 𝐬𝐨𝐜𝐢𝐚𝐥 𝐦𝐞𝐝𝐢𝐚 𝐛𝐞𝐟𝐨𝐫𝐞 𝐚 𝐜𝐞𝐫𝐭𝐚𝐢𝐧 𝐚𝐠𝐞. The research paints a more nuanced picture. Yes, digital technology can be linked to distress—but it also supports friendship, belonging, creativity, and identity development, especially when used with intention. Data tells a far richer and more balanced story than the headlines—and current panic—allow.

📉 And the causes of youth mental health struggles? Social media plays a role—but it is a small one. Family stress, academic pressure, climate anxiety, and economic insecurity 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘧𝘢𝘳 𝘨𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘳 impacts. A ban risks oversimplifying a multifaceted crisis, and worse, distracts from the real structural supports youth and families need.

🛌 And yes—physical health matters too. Young people today do face real challenges around sleep disruption, digital overuse, and screen fatigue. Projects like Charge Your Brainzzz (for which I’m a part) are shining a spotlight on these issues. That’s why I fully support efforts to help youth modulate their tech use, build in digital disconnection to counter overuse, and learn healthy habits. But again: this is a case for guidance and education—not prohibition.

🧒💬 And let’s not forget: children have rights, too. Under the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, they are entitled to participate in the digital world. A sweeping ban risks violating these rights and pushing young people into less safe, unregulated online spaces.

Yes, we need action—but let’s make it smart:
✅ Wellbeing-by-design from tech platforms
✅ Digital competency education in schools
✅ Evidence-informed standards
✅ Community support for families
✅ Stronger regulation, yes—but not blanket bans

👀 One final observation from my colleague Wouter van den Bos, which I strongly agree with (translated from Dutch): “I was surprised to see that this letter was mainly signed by general practitioners, oncologists, dermatologists, and internists. These are all smart and committed people, but not experts in the effects of social media. It’s a curious choice—and in media coverage, this can quickly become an attempt to win an argument by appealing to an (unrelated) authority (argumentum ad verecundiam).”

🔍 Science—not fear—must guide us. The current hype is not grounded in robust science. We owe it to young people to do better than reactionary bans and pseudoscientific justifications. If we care about their wellbeing, we must act with nuance, integrity, and evidence. That means supporting families, investing in smart regulation, and trusting young people enough to include them in the conversation about their digital lives.