llusion or Impact? Shaping Social Media Policy for Youth

Posted on by Jessica Piotrowski

(Note: A Dutch version of this article appeared in IDEE in December 2025, download below).

Across the globe, proposals to ban or severely restrict young people’s access to social media are gaining momentum. In Australia, lawmakers have raised the minimum age for social media accounts; in the United States and parts of Europe, similar restrictions are being debated. This debate is also happening here at home. In March 2025, the Tweede Kamer passed a motion supporting a minimum age of 15 for platforms using “addictive design”, and the demissionair cabinet has since issued a guideline discouraging use under age 15. These initiatives reflect a real appetite for stronger action, but they also illustrate the risk of turning complex challenges into blunt age thresholds.

To be sure, rules built around numbers alone can sound decisive and protective, especially to worried parents and stretched schools. But research shows that blanket restrictions rarely deliver what they promise1 and often introduce new problems – from privacy risks to pushing youth into less visible, less safe corners of the internet. A better path is to shift from control to competence: build skills, improve design, and share responsibility across platforms, schools, families, and regulators2.

The Seduction of Control

The appeal of bans is easy to understand. They lean into what scientists call confirmation bias3 – our tendency to seek and interpret information that supports existing beliefs. Presently, popular narratives (amplified by bestselling pseudo-scientific books) frame social media as the chief cause of youth mental health declines. Such arguments resonate because they match what many parents and teachers see: children glued to their phones, teachers and schools grappling with distraction and digital dependency in the classrooms, and rising levels of distress from cyberbullying, online abuse, and harmful content. When a voice says: “social media did this,” the clarity feels comforting. Consider books like Jonathan Haidt’s The Anxious Generation. This book amplifies fears with stretched truths. Correlational graphs are presented as if they prove causation, studies showing harm are highlighted while null or positive findings are ignored and claims about a “rewiring of childhood” vastly overshoot what the science of brain development can demonstrate. The popularity of Haidt’s narrative in political circles makes it especially important to separate compelling storytelling from careful science.

The problem with narratives such as these, however, is not that they recognize real struggles (they do, and they are right) – it is that they point us towards the wrong solutions. By exaggerating and oversimplifying, they make sweeping bans appear logical when, in fact, the evidence suggests otherwise. The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, for example, concluded that “contrary to the current cultural narrative that social media is universally harmful to adolescents, the reality is more complicated”4. Other scholars have shown that social media is actually one of the least influential factors in predicting adolescents’ mental health5. Even more, large multi-dataset analyses from Oxford University have shown that technology use explains less than half of one percent of the variation in adolescent well-being6. These same researchers also showed that including potatoes in a teens’ diet showed a similar association with adolescent’s wellbeing – underscoring that such correlations are not a sound basis for sweeping policy. Adding to this, still other researchers have shown that many claims about social media and youth mental health are based on oversimplified models that omit critical confounding variables, such as youth adversity7. Such problematic models can produce biased conclusions – making social media appear more harmful than it truly is7. In other words: simple narratives may be compelling, but they are also misleading, and policy built upon them risks being misguided. Indeed, by squarely focusing on social media as the blame for complex mental-health trends, we forget to focus on the other (real) drivers of youth mental health (e.g., academic pressure, climate anxiety, economic precarity) and from the specific features of social media use that matter8.

The call for bans offers something powerful: the promise of decisive action. And I wish that such decisive action would work. But age-based banning will not work (with the exception of during class time, which is logical and scientifically-supported). To be clear, I am not denying there are problems. There are many problems, and adolescents are struggling. Recognizing nuance does not mean ignoring that adolescents are struggling. It means acknowledging that simplistic fixes like bans will not help – and may even harm.

Cracks in the Ban Logic

Bans rest on the illusion that removing access (usually based on age) will solve underlying problems. Research demonstrates that sweeping restrictions are ineffective and almost always out of step with how young people live and learn1. Instead, they tend to shift risks rather than reduce them. When platforms are blocked, many young people route around restrictions with VPNs or alternate accounts. This reduces adult visibility and support while moving activity into even less safe spaces. This is a predictable pattern under “control approaches” with teens: evasion, less oversight, privacy loss, uneven enforcement, and inequity2.

Another weak point is privacy. To enforce bans, it is likely that age verification systems will be key. In theory, age verification (or age inference) promises certainty: platforms will simply keep certain young people out. In practice, the picture is murkier. Age verification and inferencing introduce privacy trade-offs, are intrusive, error-prone, easy to circumvent, and can be discriminatory. They also vary across platforms, creating loopholes and inconsistencies. And, even if such systems worked flawlessly, they would not address the real risks of online exploitation, friction-free design, or harmful content. In other words, it might keep some 14-year-olds off Instagram, but it does not change the risks of the systems, nor will it build the skills young people need to cope. Yes – age assurance may play a role in the future, but it is not the holy grail.

There are also rights at stake. The UN Committee on the Rights of the Child’s General Comment No. 25 makes clear that children’s rights to protection, provision, and participation apply in digital spaces9. Sweeping bans threaten these rights, especially the right to participation – silencing young people in civic, cultural, and educational life.

Bans also overlook a developmental reality: adolescence is a period marked by autonomy-seeking10. Rules imposed without involvement rarely foster compliance; instead, they erode trust and overlook the fact that not all social media use, or all adolescents, are the same. In digital life, that means restrictions often backfire, leaving young people less protected rather than more.

And let’s not forget the voice of parents. Importantly, the conversation should not only be about what scholars or politicians think, but also about what parents want. Recently, as part of a national survey that I lead here in the Netherlands, we asked Dutch parents about what they wanted when it came to their children’s social media use:

  • 80 percent supported stricter rules, but only 56 percent favored a complete ban under age 15.
  • 95 percent said schools should do more to protect young people online.
  • 94 percent said platforms themselves should take more responsibility.
  • 97 percent felt that parents need more help in guiding their children’s online lives.

Taken together, these findings show that parents are not per se clamoring for bans. They want shared responsibility: stronger regulation, yes, but also more education, more accountability from tech companies, and more support for families. In other words, solutions rooted in competence. That raises the question: what would such a competence-first agenda look like?

A Competence-First Scientifically-Supported Agenda

A competence-first agenda combines platform responsibility, education, family support, and adaptive regulation. And crucially, it begins with the real struggles that young people face.

Specifically, it is crucial for us to be speaking with the young people we are trying to help12. Their voice matters. Recent data that my team and I have collected (from youth) as part of our national digital competence monitor reveals that, while Dutch adolescents are confident in strategic information skills and digital problem-solving (i.e., how to use technology), they score lower in critical evaluation skills, safety and privacy, and digital well-being. Two areas are particularly weak: transactional digital skills and (generative) AI skills. In other words, they struggle precisely with the competencies that help young people navigate risk, distinguish credible from false information, and achieve healthy use. Supporting these skills is where policy can make a real difference, especially via youth-centered approach12. The recent Richtlijn Gezond Schermgebruik echoes this emphasis. Rather than focusing on bans, it highlights balance, parental involvement, and shared responsibility across families, schools, platforms, and policymakers. Its central message is the same as the one outlined here: sustainable solutions come from competence and collaboration, not exclusion14. But what does this mean, in practice?

Platforms must take responsibility by embedding well-being by design features, introducing friction to infinite scroll, prompting breaks, adding stop-and-think features, and ensuring safer defaults for minors. And this does not have to happen alone. Platforms should work with researchers to not only identify and reduce problematic features but also features which support young people’s digital competence. Tools like age assurance may also play a role here, but they must balance privacy with participation. Independent audits of algorithms and safety practices are also needed, alongside enforceable transparency standards. Article 28 of the DSA offers important points in this regard15.

Schools should integrate digital competence into curricula across all grades. That means teaching critical evaluation of online information, privacy protection, healthy digital habits, and transactional skills. These are precisely the areas where Dutch youth data show gaps. It is for this reason that I am especially happy to see that digital competency has now been formally recognized in the Dutch curriculum by SLO – not just as a collection of skills, but as a core domain with clear objectives across all grade levels. I hope this commitment will be matched with the necessary investment in teachers and classrooms, so that digital competence does not remain an aspiration but becomes a lived reality for every student.

Parents, too, must be supported. With 97 percent of Dutch parents signaling that they need more help, evidence-based resources are essential. Policies that encourage open dialogue, rather than surveillance, will foster resilience. Community-based initiatives can also provide collective support. Efforts such as Project Cyberouder can make great strides in this space.

And lastly, government should embrace adaptive, rights-based regulation: pilot interventions before scaling, continuously evaluate outcomes, look to science – not hype, and ensure alignment with children’s rights to protection, provision, and participation.

In Conclusion – Illusion or Impact?

We face a choice. One path – bans and blunt controls – offers the illusion of safety. They may look like the perfect solution, but they are a problematic one: risking privacy loss, circumvention, and exclusion from valuable parts of digital life. The other path – competence – is more demanding but more promising: invest in education, require safer design including age-appropriate guardrails, support families, and regulate with evidence and rights at the core. Protecting young people in the digital age is not about keeping them out. It is about preparing them to participate fully, critically, and safely in the digital society. There is no single fix, and we will not get it perfect. But let’s not let progress be the enemy of perfection. If we can take steps in many directions, we can move forward. The debate over bans shows us something important: citizens and politicians alike are ready to act. The question is whether we act in ways that offer only the illusion of protection – or in ways that truly deliver impact.

—

References

  1. Lemahieu L, Vander Zwalmen Y, Mennes M, Koster EHW, Vanden Abeele MMP, Poels K. The effects of social media abstinence on affective well-being and life satisfaction: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Sci Rep. 2025;15(1):7581. doi:10.1038/s41598-025-90984-3
  2. Piotrowski JT. Protecting without excluding. Published online September 23, 2025.
  3. Hovland CI, Janis IL, Kelley HH. Communication and Persuasion; Psychological Studies of Opinion Change. Yale University Press; 1953:xii, 315.
  4. Galea S, Buckley GJ, Wojtowicz A, eds. Social Media and Adolescent Health. National Academies Press; 2024. doi:10.17226/27396
  5. Panayiotou M, Black L, Carmichael-Murphy P, Qualter P, Humphrey N. Social media use among the least influential factors in adolescent mental health: Results from a panel network analysis. Research Square. Preprint posted online September 8, 2022. doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-2002883/v1
  6. Orben A, Przybylski AK. The association between adolescent well-being and digital technology use. Nat Hum Behav. 2019;3(2):173-182. doi:10.1038/s41562-018-0506-1
  7. Sewall CJR, Parry DA. Social media and youth mental health: Simple narratives produce biased interpretations. J Psychopathol Clin Sci. 2024;133(7):507-514. doi:10.1037/abn0000950
  8. Odgers CL. The great rewiring: is social media really behind an epidemic of teenage mental illness? Nature. 2024;628(8006):29-30. doi:10.1038/d41586-024-00902-2
  9. Livingstone S. Children’s rights apply in the digital world! Parent Digit Future. Published online 2021. https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/parenting4digitalfuture/2021/03/24/general-comment-25/
  10. Valkenburg PM, Piotrowski JT. Plugged in: How Media Attract and Affect Youth. Yale University Press; 2017.
  11. van Oosten A, Piotrowski J, Korderijnk R, de Vries D, de Vreese C. DigIQ2 survey Round 2. Published online September 30, 2025. Accessed September 30, 2025. https://osf.io/7eybn/
  12. Rozendaal E. Digitale weerbaarheid: Wat kinderen nodig hebben om online uitdagingen aan te gaan. Tijdschr Voor Commun. 2025;53(3):211-221. doi:10.5117/TCW2025.3.002.ROZE
  13. de Vries D, Piotrowski J, de Vreese C, van Oosten A, Korderijnk R. Reports and Presentations. Published online May 9, 2022. Accessed September 30, 2025. https://osf.io/db3e6/
  14. Koning I, Vossen H, Brons H, van den Eijnden R. Richtlijn Gezond Schermgebruik voor Opvoeders. Published online June 17, 2025. https://www.uu.nl/sites/default/files/Richtlijn%20Gezond%20Schermgebruik.pdf
  15. Commission publishes guidelines on the protection of minors | Shaping Europe’s digital future. Accessed September 28, 2025. https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/library/commission-publishes-guidelines-protection-minors

The published Dutch version of the article (download below) can cited as: Piotrowski, J. T. (2025, December). Socials in de ban: illusie of impact? Idee, 62–67.

idee229—Socials in de ban_illusie of impact?Download