David Mottershead

The evidence around children’s social media use and poor mental health is mixed and far from conclusive. Yet politicians and some campaigners are now pushing for blanket under-16 bans. Their confidence is difficult to reconcile with the research: - major reviews find small and inconsistent associations between time spent on social media and mental health - large studies following children over time reach different conclusions about whether increased use predicts later distress - much of the experimental evidence comes from adults and university students, rather than the children these bans would affect - short, voluntary reductions in use tell us little about the consequences of compulsory, long term exclusion, they also suffer from a placebo effect as participants always know their assigned role - studies often bundle together very different activities, content and experiences under screen time, when we know that experiences can vary and many have positive ones - the US National Academies concluded that the evidence insufficient to recommend bans - lasting benefits from restrictions, as well as their effectiveness in the world of VPNs, remain entirely unproven, while the potential costs of losing access to friendships, communities and support has not been assessed - the potential for partners to lose track and control, as well as children being pushed to unregulated and more dangerous platforms, is rarely considered, nor is children’s right to access information and public debate None of this requires believing that every platform is benign or that every child’s interaction with social media is positive. It is nevertheless very important to question whether the policy being proposed will actually improve children’s lives.