Send us Fan Mail

A social media ban for kids under 16 sounds like the kind of clean, decisive fix adults crave when they feel frightened and powerless. I get that fear. Parents are worried, schools are exhausted, and clinicians and safeguarding teams are seeing what algorithm-driven platforms expose children to: comparison, sexualization, cruelty, misinformation, addictive design, and relentless social evaluation. Still, I’m not convinced prohibition is the answer, especially when it’s presented as “settled science” without transparent evidence and detailed guidance.

I take a child and adolescent psychotherapy lens to a simple question with huge policy implications: what are kids using social media for? For some, it’s compulsive. For others, it’s avoidance, belonging, identity formation, self-soothing, or a temporary escape from conflict they cannot regulate. Neurodivergent children may find online communication more manageable than in-person connection. When we treat social media use as a behavior to stop, we can miss the underlying distress and the unmet needs that keep pulling young people back.

We also talk about unintended consequences that matter for digital safety and adolescent mental health: secrecy, VPNs, hidden accounts, more family conflict, migration to less regulated spaces, and a drop in disclosure. Safeguarding depends on trust, and trust collapses when kids expect punishment or panic. The alternative is layered policy that targets platform accountability and age-appropriate design: algorithm transparency, limits on addictive features, real enforcement, digital literacy, support for families, and mental health services people can actually access, backed by long-term research that measures wellbeing not just screen time. If this perspective helps, subscribe, share the episode with a parent or educator, and leave a review with your thoughts on what real protection should look like.