Netflix’s recent award-winning series, Adolescence, tells the story of how social media and online influence drives 13-year-old Jamie to violent behavior. The cautionary tale based on real events sparks relevant conversations about the threat social media poses to children’s safety and mental health. Adolescence’s popularity is especially timely as governments around the world begin enacting legislation to restrict social media access—in Australia, a minimum age of 16 will be required to create online accounts starting this December.

But a social media ban misses the point entirely. The problem is not that teens are online—it’s how and why they engage with social media platforms.

Measuring social media use through screen time alone fails to capture the whole story. While greater screen time is linked with stress, anxiety, and depressive symptoms, research remains unclear whether screen time causes mental health problems or if struggling teens simply spend more time online.

What matters more than screen time is the type of activity teens engage in online—some of which can protect against mental health problems. In fact, research increasingly shows social media not as solely harmful, but rather as a “double-edged sword” with the potential
for benefit or for harm, depending on its use.

For many adolescents, online spaces can provide community and support to help them explore their identities and find acceptance. This is especially important for teens with marginalized identities who may not have safe or affirming spaces in person. Social media provides a platform for individuals to share personal experiences with mental health, destigmatize mental illness, and spread mental health resources to those who may not otherwise have access.

Positive social interactions online can even help protect against mental health problems. For teens who have thoughts about suicide, spending less time on social media is linked with more suicidal ideation because they experience less social belonging through online
social engagement. Online friendships also reduce the risk of suicide by providing social support.

Yet, much of the public discourse, from both parents and policymakers, focuses on the negative aspects of social media without acknowledging the positive experiences that teens can have online. A ban on social media for children under 16, although well intentioned,
would nonetheless take away opportunities for teens to connect online in spaces that they may not have in-person. Limiting access to social media is not the solution.

If banning isn’t the answer, what is? Like social media itself, the solution is complex and multifaceted. Parents can start by encouraging teens to avoid using smartphones an hour before bedtime, since nighttime social media use is linked with poorer sleep outcomes, which in turn affects mental health. Teens themselves can practice healthy social media use by being mindful, paying attention to which activities trigger negative emotions and prioritizing activities that promote positive experiences.

Real change comes from the top. As opposed to a ban on social media, legislators should instead focus on regulating the companies behind the platforms, which prioritize making profits from data extracted from minors rather than considering children’s well-being. These companies show a lack of accountability even when it is directly in their power to build in age-appropriate controls, remove harmful content, and modify addictive app features to make social media safer for teens.

Instead of taking access away from teens who are using social media to make online connections, policymakers need to refocus their efforts on the companies who are taking advantage of our children. The responsibility falls on them. Young people deserve better, and it’s time we demand it from the ones who stand to benefit most from exploiting them