The UK is one of several countries announcing social media bans for kids under 16. A common objection is that these bans don’t keep kids off social media, but Jonah Prousky argues that this misses the point. Like legislation on the minimum legal drinking age in the US, even with imperfect compliance, social media bans may have the power to shape online culture for future generations.
Enjoying this post? Then sign up to our newsletter and receive a weekly roundup of all our articles.
Around the world, countries are curbing children’s access to social media. In late 2024, Australia’s government passed an ambitious world-first social media ban that included Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat, and TikTok for kids under 16. In the months that followed, lawmakers everywhere, from Canada to Malaysia, Denmark, and France, began drafting and passing their own versions of Australia’s bill. And on June 15, the UK announced what might be the tightest restrictions yet tried. Built on the Australian framework, the UK’s ban also includes additional restrictions around livestreaming and gaming.
A common objection to these measures is that social media bans don’t work. That point has been made in the pages of a major newspaper seemingly everywhere that a social media ban has been tried. Countries are clamouring to pass social media bans, meanwhile the data show plainly that kids find ways around them. For example, a March report from Australia’s eSafetey commission found that 7 in 10 parents said their child under 16 still had access to an account on Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat, or TikTok following the ban. So why bother?
I think these objections, as well as this early data, miss the point. Social media bans are about changing our screen-addled culture. The law is very capable of doing that, only, it’s difficult to see because cultural change can occur over several decades. When countries outlaw specific drugs, for example, they don’t just disappear from the streets overnight. Rather, society evolves, slowly, around the law – sociologists call this phenomenon “cultural lag”. A ban on social media for kids under 16 may not change much for today’s teenagers. But it may shape social media culture for future generations.
A ban on social media for kids under 16 may not change much for today’s teenagers. But it may shape social media culture for future generations.
The case of youth alcohol restrictions in the US
When the U.S. instituted a minimum legal drinking age (MLDA) in 1984, the debate surrounding the law mirrored the international conversation on social media bans today. People called the MLDA a band-aid fix for a much larger problem: impaired driving. Many also thought the age of 21 was totally arbitrary, and that keeping alcohol out of kids’ hands was really a parenting issue. And, just like social media bans, many said the MLDA was unenforceable, because wily teens would get their hands on booze, even if they couldn’t purchase it themselves.
But the MLDA has been remarkably successful, even though it’s never been fully enforceable. For example, in a 1996 paper, researchers at the University of Minnesota described the law’s effect as follows.
“What is compelling is that the effect of the higher MLDA is occurring with little or no enforcement. A common argument among opponents of a higher MLDA is that because many minors still drink and purchase alcohol, an MLDA of 21 does not work. The evidence shows, however, that although many youth still consume alcohol, they drink less and experience fewer alcohol-related injuries and deaths than they did under lower MLDA’s.”
Indeed, in the years following the MLDA’s passing, teenage alcohol consumption dropped precipitously. From 1985 to 1991, the percentage of Americans between ages 18 and 21 who reported drinking alcohol during the past month dropped almost 20 per cent. What’s more, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration estimated that, in 1987 alone, 1071 traffic crash fatalities were prevented because of the MLDA.
I’m not suggesting that the MLDA alone was responsible for these positive developments, just that it played an important role – a symbolic role. It galvanized America’s collective consciousness around a simple idea, that adolescent drinking is harmful, and this gave activists, like Mothers Against Drunk Driving (M.A.D.D), and parents some terra firma on which to stand.
Robert Voas, A. Scott Tippetts, and James C. Fell tested the effects of MLDA laws in a 2003 article for Accident Analysis and Prevention. They argued that “normative changes in drinking and in drinking and driving are occurring that are influenced by the existence of the legislation independently of the strength of its enforcement.” Why? Because of what sociologists of law have known all along – that the law has a dual purpose, it’s a set of rules, but also a set of symbols. And because of this, Voas and his coauthors found that, “safety laws, in turn, serve to publicize the limits of normative behavior. The effect sizes obtained for the laws in this study undoubtedly reflect influences beyond those resulting from their enforcement.”
Playing the long game
To grasp the potential of social media bans, one mustn’t only judge them on enforceability, but also the longer-tail cultural changes they affect. The Australian government seemed to understand this when it passed its world-first social media ban. “The real impacts will not be measured just in days and weeks, but actually in terms of years,” said Julie Inman Grant, the country’s eSafety Commissioner. “We’re playing the long game.”
To grasp the potential of social media bans, one mustn’t only judge them on enforceability, but also the longer-tail cultural changes they affect.
This is also why technology legislation that seems ineffective at first blush can work in a roundabout way. For example, before it passed the social media ban, the Australian government passed another world-first tech law, the News Media Bargaining Code. The Code stipulates that “designated” technology companies are required to pay Australian media outlets for featuring snippets of news on their platforms. But no platform has ever officially been designated. Rather, tech companies were issued exemptions for reaching private agreements with Australian news businesses, which was ultimately the goal of the law anyway. The law, then, which has never been officially used, has already generated over $1 billion for news companies.
Social media bans appear already to be having a similar effect. For example, several companies not listed in the ban, including Apple, and popular gaming platform Roblox have made changes to their child-safety procedures. Apple, for instance, recently previewed a new suite of parental controls, which CEO Tim Cook said were inspired by Australia’s ban. If these laws continue to pressure Big Tech into changing in small, positive ways – say, by redesigning features like “infinite scroll” so they’re less addictive – these bans will have been a massive success.
Ultimately, I think the legacy of this wave of social media bans will be a lot like that of the MLDA. These laws may never be fully enforceable. But that may not matter.
Enjoyed this post? Sign up to our newsletter and receive a weekly roundup of all our articles.
All articles posted on this blog give the views of the author(s), and not the position of LSE British Politics and Policy, nor of the London School of Economics and Political Science.
Image credit: Mamun_Sheikh on Shutterstock.
