Suggestions that a ban social media for under-16s should be introduced is “not a logical starting point” for enhancing the wellbeing of young people, a group of academics have said.
The Cabinet approved a digital and artificial intelligence strategy on Wednesday but, despite earlier suggestions from senior Ministers, it did not contain a promise to ban under-16s from social media.
The Government instead said it will consult the EU and “like-minded countries” to promote measures that may eventually keep children off the online platforms.
A Government spokesman said the the intention is to work with partners on proposals for age verification, which could in future end up preventing under-16s from accessing some social media content.
READ MORE
Academics associated with The All Ireland Science Media Centre, however, said restricting social media for under 16s would not be a “logical starting point” if the aim is to enhance young people’s well being.
“We are told social media is a massive problem for our youth, but we should question if this is actually true,” said Dr Eoin Whelan, professor of business analytics at the University of Galway.
[ New digital and AI strategy to confirm plans for under-16s social media banOpens in new window ]
“Across the scientific literature, there is very little evidence saying that social media leads to a decline in wellbeing for youth.”
Whelan was referring to a recent report published by the American National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM) which surmised that the “committee’s review of the literature did not support the conclusion that social media causes changes in adolescent health at the population level”.
Whelan’s own research with adolescents in Ireland did find a negative relationship between social media and adolescent wellbeing. However, the effect was “very weak and not clinically relevant,” he said.
Social media is not harmless, and many young people do have bad experiences online, he said. But enforcing restrictions “just says that they [the young people] are responsible, not the social media companies”.
A blanket social media restriction could also “isolate some youths instead of helping them,” he said.
He pointed to the benefits that marginalised teens in particular may get from being on social media, where they can find community.
Dr Ruth Melia, associate professor in clinical psychology at UL, takes a similar view.
Speaking to The Irish Times, she said there “certainly isn’t enough evidence an all out ban would be effective” and she would be “cautious of blaming one aspect” of what can impact on young people’s mental health.
Placing all of the blame regarding youth mental health difficulties on social media “distracts from more fundamental societal issues that we know impact youth mental health substantially,” Melia said.
“While placing the blame on one factor is enticing, there is a risk of looking past long-standing and established causes of mental health difficulties that require much more complex and fundamental changes,” she said.
These, she suggested, include adverse childhood experiences (abuse, neglect, bullying), poor family relationships, and socioeconomic disadvantage.
The impact that smartphone usage can have on sleep and activity levels was well-known and “more robust standards and regulation are certainly needed to support the safety of young people in the digital environment,” Melia said. But it was the companies who stand to profit from this engagement who were “key to this”.
Melia also felt the voice of young people has been “largely missing from this debate to date”.
Another issue was enforcement, which Dr Daragh Bradshaw, associate professor at the department of psychology, UL, said presents “further challenges”.
“Age-based bans are difficult to regulate and may push children toward covert or unmoderated platforms, reducing opportunities for guidance and digital literacy education,” he said.
Prof Matthew Sadlier, vice-president of the Irish Medical Organisation and a consultant psychiatrist, expressed a different view.
He said that while an outright ban on social media use for under-16s would not be without issues, it was still preferable to the status quo.
“There will be some children who will navigate their way around a social media ban, just as there are some children who will drink alcohol before they turn 18,” he said.
“But overall, a ban is imperative because it will shift overall patterns of usage and act as a real support for parents who want to delay their children’s smartphone usage.”
