New Research Shows Teen Social Media Bans Might Not Be the Answer
As Ash Johnson writes in The Hill, the framing of teen social media use as a public health crisis has outpaced the evidence and produced blunt policy responses, particularly age-based bans and sweeping restrictions. Johnson situates these proposals within a familiar pattern of moral panic, where new technologies are treated as uniquely harmful despite weak or inconclusive empirical foundations.
Citing new longitudinal research from the University of Manchester, along with findings from the American Psychological Association and the U.S. Surgeon General, Johnson demonstrates that there is no causal link between the time spent on social media or gaming and adolescent mental health outcomes. Instead, impacts vary based on individual psychology, social context, content, platform design, sleep, physical activity, and socioeconomic factors.
On this basis, Johnson argues that one-size-fits-all regulation is structurally misaligned with how children actually experience digital platforms. Blanket bans ignore developmental variability, encourage circumvention, and weaken incentives for platforms to invest in safety features. Rather than treating screen time itself as the harm, Johnson reframes the policy challenge around governance and design: empowering parents, enabling flexible controls, incentivizing safer platforms, and targeting specific, evidence-based risks.
Johnson concludes that effective youth digital policy must abandon symbolic prohibitions in favor of nuanced, evidence-driven approaches that reflect the complexity of adolescent development and online life.
