{"id":14476,"date":"2026-02-13T15:59:35","date_gmt":"2026-02-13T15:59:35","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/zadecu.org\/?p=14476"},"modified":"2026-02-13T15:59:36","modified_gmt":"2026-02-13T15:59:36","slug":"to-ban-or-not-to-ban-that-should-not-be-the-question","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/zadecu.org\/en\/to-ban-or-not-to-ban-that-should-not-be-the-question\/","title":{"rendered":"To Ban Or Not To Ban?: That Should Not Be The Question"},"content":{"rendered":"

CRIN – CHILD RIGHTS INTERNATIONAL NETWORK<\/em><\/p>\n

To ban or not to ban social media for children? That is the question many countries are considering worldwide, starting with\u00a0Australia<\/a><\/u>\u00a0which, in December 2025 became the first to pass a law that excludes under-16s from\u00a0some social media<\/a><\/u>. The next month,\u00a0the UK Government<\/u><\/a>\u00a0announced a consultation on the issue. There are ongoing discussions around an\u00a0EU<\/u><\/a>\u00a0digital minimum age for access to social media. And the debate continues to gain momentum\u00a0in more and more countries<\/u><\/a>, from\u00a0Denmark<\/u><\/a>,\u00a0France<\/u><\/a>\u00a0and\u00a0Spain<\/u><\/a>\u00a0to\u00a0several US states<\/u><\/a>,\u00a0India<\/u><\/a>,\u00a0Malaysia<\/u>\u00a0<\/a>and\u00a0Indonesia<\/u><\/a>.<\/p>\n

Proponents for bans\u00a0emphasise<\/u><\/a>\u00a0the need to safeguard children\u2019s psychological and emotional well-being, promote healthy development, mitigate the exploitation of children\u2019s personal data, and empower parents to better guide their children\u2019s online activities. Opponents of the bans, a group that perhaps counter-intuitively includes many\u00a0children\u2019s and online safety<\/u><\/a>\u00a0organisations,\u00a0argue<\/u><\/a>\u00a0that they limit children\u2019s ability to exercise the full range of their rights, including the ability to develop, share and look for ideas, connect with others, organise themselves politically, explore and shape their identities, and learn, play and more.<\/p>\n

These arguments in favour and against social media bans illustrate an ongoing binary approach to children\u2019s place in the digital world, and it is difficult to talk about the issue without reinforcing the divide in the debate. This alone points to the need for a more nuanced and deliberative approach, one which critically examines things. What if \u201cto ban or not to ban\u201d is the wrong question? And if it is, then where should we start instead?<\/p>\n

How do social media bans affect the debates on children and the digital environment?<\/h4>\n

One question always seems to run through the debates on children and the digital world: should the approach focus on protecting children online\u00a0or<\/i>\u00a0on empowering them to freely explore the world around them?<\/p>\n

The problem with this question – which CRIN has\u00a0visited<\/u><\/a>\u00a0previously – is that it frames the issue as\u00a0either\/or<\/i>. But this is a false dilemma: should children not be able to access digital spaces\u00a0and<\/i>\u00a0be safe while doing so? These two things are not incompatible. Yet what we are seeing is that, with a rising number of countries considering bans as the apparent solution to the problems children face on social media, mainstream approaches are prioritising protection over access and connection.<\/p>\n

It is uncritically assumed that bans are the best way to achieve protection. We have seen this prohibitionist argument before: it is\u00a0regrettably<\/u><\/a>\u00a0often<\/u><\/a>\u00a0made about children. But bans bypass the whole conversation about what\u00a0effective<\/i>\u00a0protection looks like.<\/p>\n

Ban-solutionism – the belief that banning something is the same as solving it – promises us safety but sidesteps the complicated reality of what children face and fails to define the problem. To help us unpack this, we should be looking at the full range of children\u2019s rights, which covers the protection and empowerment of children, in all their complexity.<\/p>\n

How should we approach a rights-based discussion on social media bans?<\/h4>\n

Examining the impact of social media bans on children requires an appreciation of the full range of their human rights, with none existing in isolation or being more important than others. The\u00a0UN Convention on the Rights of the Child<\/u><\/a>\u00a0(CRC) shows us the breadth of human rights that children have both online and offline, among which we find children\u2019s rights to protection from violence and protection from information and material \u201cinjurious to their well-being\u201d, as well as the rights to non-discrimination, freedom of expression and information, free association and peaceful assembly, privacy, health, education and development, culture, leisure and play. And what is fundamental about these rights is that they are universal (they apply to all children), indivisible (no right is more important than another), and interdependent (the realisation of one right depends on the fulfilment of the others).<\/p>\n

Considering this broad range of rights, the impact of social media bans is complex. This is consistent with\u00a0available evidence<\/u><\/a>, which\u00a0does not support<\/u><\/a>\u00a0\u201csimple or universal claims that social media use is inherently harmful\u201d. Some social media is indeed toxic and it can be a tool for committing\u00a0the most serious crimes<\/u><\/a>\u00a0against children, but there is nothing about the concept of social media itself that makes it so.<\/p>\n

How do social media bans impact children\u2019s rights?<\/h4>\n

Take protection from violence.<\/b>\u00a0The assumption is that banning children from social media could shelter them from contact with\u00a0perpetrators of online child sexual abuse<\/u><\/a>\u00a0or protect them from the mental violence caused by\u00a0financial sexual extortion<\/u><\/a>.<\/p>\n

In reality, bans could also prevent children who are already facing violence from finding advice and understanding from peers and professionals in online support groups accessed via social media. Such children could feel\u00a0increased shame<\/u><\/a>\u00a0and isolation, which might stop them from seeking help altogether, thereby leaving them vulnerable to continued violence. There are ways to circumvent bans by keeping users\u2019 circumstances (location or age) private. But the assumption will be that most children will not use social media following a ban, which removes the incentive to make platforms safe for children in general. Younger children who will manage to access social media somehow will find themselves in\u00a0even lower-quality environments<\/u><\/a>\u00a0than now. Some might even be\u00a0driven to the dark web<\/u><\/a>.<\/p>\n

But even supposing the majority do respect the prohibition,\u00a0bans create a \u201ccliff edge\u201d<\/u><\/a>\u00a0when children turn the age required to join social media. Birthdays are not magic moments of sudden wisdom and resilience: having only known a low-tech, rudimentary, sanitised digital space, children will gain immediate access to high-risk social media – but without having gradually developed the skills to navigate it safely and, as per the CRC, in a manner consistent with their evolving capacities. Welcome to the jungle.<\/p>\n

Next, take mental health.<\/b>\u00a0Social media\u00a0can<\/u><\/a>\u00a0make children compare themselves to others, increase their fear of missing out, keep them in echo chambers, put them under pressure to reply and keep up to date, feed them overwhelming or triggering content and cause sleep problems. Some social media even contains\u00a0misinformation<\/u><\/a>\u00a0about mental health. Based on this, it would seem that banning social media could be beneficial to children’s mental health.<\/p>\n

But social media can also have\u00a0positive impacts<\/u><\/a>\u00a0on children\u2019s mental health by helping them build community, see themselves represented in different experiences, get creative, find inspiration for activities, support causes they care about, or find education and work experiences. Plus, bans would\u00a0negatively<\/u><\/a>\u00a0impact<\/u><\/a>\u00a0the mental well-being of those from disadvantaged or marginalised communities in particular, like\u00a0LGBT+<\/u><\/a>\u00a0children<\/u><\/a>\u00a0or\u00a0children with disabilities<\/u><\/a>, by preventing them from accessing spaces where they feel safe to be themselves.<\/p>\n

Now take privacy.<\/b>\u00a0The claim is that bans could\u00a0address concerns around the exploitation of children’s data<\/u><\/a>\u00a0by limiting the amount of personal data about children collected by companies.<\/p>\n

In fact, bans are extremely intrusive because of the need to identify who is a child, potentially by checking every user\u2019s age – adults as well as children. Bans could increase the processing of personal data, raising questions about how age-checking could be done effectively and\u00a0what the impact would be on privacy<\/u><\/a>.<\/p>\n

And crucially, take children\u2019s right to be heard.<\/b>\u00a0It is true that some children\u00a0think<\/u><\/a>\u00a0that social media bans could encourage them to socialise more in person, exercise more, engage more in hobbies, and break free from addiction and exposure to unrealistic standards.<\/p>\n

But children, just like adults, hold a variety of opinions. Surveys already show that many under-18s are either\u00a0clearly opposed to<\/u><\/a>\u00a0or have\u00a0very mixed<\/u><\/a>\u00a0feelings<\/u><\/a>\u00a0about bans, feeling that the drawbacks of social media\u00a0are not significant enough<\/u><\/a>\u00a0to justify a ban. It does not seem like these views are being seriously and carefully considered by policymakers.\u00a0Meaningful consultation<\/u><\/a>\u00a0with children in matters which affect them is an absolute must; it is their right, not an afterthought, as\u00a0seems<\/u><\/a>\u00a0to have been the case in Australia.<\/p>\n

Are social media bans necessary and proportionate?<\/h4>\n

All this considered, can we really say bans are a compelling answer to the legitimate concerns around children and social media? Under human rights law, some children\u2019s rights (such as free expression and privacy) can be restricted by measures aimed at respecting other rights (such as protecting children from violence). However, these measures must be both necessary and proportionate. This forces us to ask if the measures proposed will be effective in achieving their aim and if there is a way of achieving that aim that is less restrictive on the rights that the measures limit.<\/p>\n

As we have seen above, the necessity and proportionality of bans are extremely doubtful because they can leave children vulnerable to violence, stifle children\u2019s positive digital experiences and further isolate those who are disadvantaged and marginalised. This is happening because children\u2019s rights in their entirety have not been the priority in policy debates, even though rights are fundamental in helping us think about what good policy-making looks like.<\/p>\n

Where do we go from here?<\/h4>\n

\u201cTo ban or not to ban\u201d is the wrong question – we need to start asking the right questions instead. Rather than ban-solutionism, the starting point in developing a rights-respecting, effective response to the impact of social media on children could be to ask:<\/p>\n