Minors, social media, and adult responsibility

In the summer of 2023, I published the article "Screens: for all ages and without limits?", in which I posed an uncomfortable but essential question: how is it possible that we have normalized unlimited access to screens, especially during childhood and adolescence, without a deep collective debate about the consequences?

This debate, until now theoretical, is beginning to translate into decisions to prohibit access to social networks for minors under 16, and France and Spain have already announced that they will follow the same path.Smartphone ownership, age of smartphone acquisition, and health outcomes in early adolescence", published this January in the prestigious magazine PediatricsThis study arrives at a crucial moment in this political and social debate, and provides data that can hardly be ignored.

The study focuses on three very specific variables (depression, obesity, and lack of sleep), which are neither minor nor anecdotal. The results indicate that adolescents who have access to a smartphone They exhibit more depressive symptoms, sleep less than recommended, and are more likely to be obese. And importantly, these differences persist even when factors such as socioeconomic status, gender, and family environment are taken into account. We are not, therefore, talking about a problem exclusively attributable to vulnerable contexts, but rather a widespread pattern. Other studies have demonstrated an increase in anxiety, body image disorders, suicide, and digital addiction. Added to this are other risks: cyberbullying, exposure to sexual and violent content, misinformation, and increasingly fragile attention and concentration. Therefore, prohibiting access to social media does not stem from moral panic, but from an accumulation of warning signs. The responsibility for adolescents' frequent misuse of social media cannot fall on them. The platforms are designed to encourage this. The algorithms do not seek the user's well-being, but rather to maximize connection time. Endless content, instant rewards, constant notifications, and social validation in the form of likes They create a particularly addictive environment for developing brains. Asking a teenager to self-regulate in the face of this system is, at the very least, naive. Trusting that Big Tech will act out of social responsibility, when their business depends on not doing so, is even more naive.

One of the most repeated arguments against a ban is that, technically, it is difficult, if not impossible, to enforce. True: any minor can bypass restrictions with fake identities or VPNs. But this reasoning overlooks a key element: a ban is also an awareness tool. Setting limits is also a form of education. It's about sending a clear message to families, schools, society, and teenagers themselves: social media is not harmless, and limits must be set.

In fact, when people say that "prohibition isn't the solution," they often overlook the fact that as a society we already accept restrictions in many other areas. Access to gambling, pornography, alcohol, and tobacco, for example, has age limits. No one argues that a child should be able to consume any substance by appealing solely to their individual responsibility: the proper use is not to use it. Why should it be any different with social media?

Regulating the digital world is a new, ever-changing, and uncertain terrain. We will have to learn from our mistakes and successes, adjust policies, and improve mechanisms. But refusing to act for fear of making a mistake is, in itself, a political decision, and not exactly a neutral one.

In parallel, some go even further and propose an even more radical idea: delaying access to the former. smartphone up to age 16. The arguments in favor are clear: fewer distractions, less dependence, and greater social development away from the screen. Opponents, however, warn of a possible digital divide and communication difficulties with their closest social environment.

In this regard, the study published in Pediatrics It provides very clear data: the earlier one enters the digital ecosystem, the worse the health indicators. But even more revealing is that the study finds no evidence that early ownership of a smartphone This translates into improved social connection or emotional well-being for adolescents. This dismantles one of the most common arguments against any regulation: the idea that limiting digital access isolates young people. The data suggests precisely the opposite: premature access does not guarantee healthier socialization and can have real costs for physical and mental health.

Given the evidence, the next debate—and it is urgent—will be the age at which the first [digital access] should be acquired. smartphone. Opening this debate isn't about attacking young people or demonizing technology, but about assuming adult responsibility. Perhaps banning access to social media is the first step toward ceasing to look the other way.