Global Social Media Bans Raise Questions About Their Impact on Teen Mental Health

Amid growing concerns over the effects of social media on youth mental health, Meta recently agreed to pay up to $18 billion in the U.S. to settle claims that Facebook and Instagram negatively impacted children. The company will introduce “safety by design” features for younger users, including hiding the number of “likes” on posts. However, the effectiveness of these changes in altering young people's behavior remains uncertain, as does the potential impact of the bans.

With significant changes occurring globally, researchers are urged to conduct independent evaluations to assess how social media regulation influences the mental health and well-being of teenagers. Given that nearly half of all mental health issues arise by age 18, such research is essential.

The question at hand may not be whether social media is inherently positive or negative, or whether restrictions are effective. Researchers need to explore whether adjustments in young people's digital landscapes lead to meaningful improvements in their mental health and well-being.

Evidence suggests that there is unlikely to be a singular “social media effect” applicable to all teens. Restrictions may impact individuals differently based on age, existing mental health conditions, and sleep patterns, as well as factors like gender, socioeconomic status, and geographic location. Social media often serves as a vital community resource, particularly for marginalized groups, including LGBTQ+ youth. Individual usage patterns also play a crucial role in the effects of any restrictions.

If the bans do result in improvements in mental health, understanding the underlying reasons will be critical. Changes may be linked to increased in-person social interactions or better sleep, insights that could inform future policy aimed at supporting youth mental health.

Initial findings from Australia indicate that enforcing age verification for social media platforms presents a significant challenge. A study in the British Medical Journal revealed minimal reductions in social media usage three months post-ban, with many young people circumventing age restrictions. According to a report from Australia's online regulator, over 80% of children continued using restricted platforms. Behavioral economist Leonardo Bursztyn noted that teenagers still perceive their peers as using these platforms, suggesting that peer influence will be a key factor in the success of such restrictions.

In the U.K., the government plans to implement a social media ban in spring 2027. The philanthropic foundation Wellcome has committed to funding evaluations of the ban's impact on youth mental health, engaging research teams working with thousands of teenagers. The evaluation process is being shaped by input from young people who have experienced social media use and mental health challenges.

This group has urged researchers to focus not only on the harms of social media but also on its current role in young people's lives and what might replace it if access is curtailed. Young users acknowledge the risks associated with social media but emphasize its function as a platform for learning, connection, and support. They suggest that evaluations should track how teenagers spend their time in lieu of social media, examining positive activities versus unproductive alternatives.

The research initiative aims to understand how changes in the digital environment affect youth mental health and why. While the focus is on the U.K., the inquiries hold global significance. Comparative studies of outcomes in Australia, the U.K., and the E.U. could yield valuable insights. This presents a unique opportunity for global research collaboration to profoundly influence future approaches to youth mental health interventions.

Camilla Iannone is the research lead in the mental health evidence team at Wellcome.