Earlier this month, British Prime Minister Keir Starmer proposed that the United Kingdom ban children under 16 from accessing social media. If this happens, Britain would follow in the footsteps of Australia that implemented its nationwide ban in December 2025.
I get it. There are plenty of examples of teens who have been harmed by their use of social media. But there are far more examples of teens who have benefited from access to these services. I support legislation that makes these services safer for teens while stopping short of keeping them away.
U.S. state laws
Several U.S. states, including California, Texas, Massachusetts, Kentucky, Maine and North Carolina, have introduced legislation that would either ban younger teens from social media entirely or prohibit social media companies or require parents to sign-off on their teens’ use of social media.
California’s AB 1709, which was overwhelmingly passed by the Assembly but not yet the Senate, would prohibit children under 16 from creating or maintaining accounts on “covered platforms” that have addictive features, such as algorithmically generated feeds, infinite scrolling, autoplay and similar engagement mechanisms.
Fix algorithms and let the teens stay
Aside from the fact that this bill has yet to become law, it’s not clear whether social media companies such as Meta, Snap, and TikTok will be willing or able to modify their platforms so they no longer include features the bill defines as “addictive.” If they can do so, and if those changes meaningfully reduce the risks lawmakers are concerned about, I would hope that any new laws would allow younger teens to continue using these services rather than imposing a ban.
I would support a law that allows teens to remain on social media when so-called addictive features are removed or significantly curtailed. As CEO of ConnectSafely and someone who advises social media companies on safety issues, I would urge these companies to comply with the law not by banning users under 16, but by redesigning their products to reduce the features that lawmakers and researchers believe contribute to excessive use.
For example, I would support eliminating infinite scrolling for teen users and sharply limiting notifications. I also agree that algorithmic content recommendations can be harmful to both youth and adults when they create echo chambers, encourage an obsessive focus on a single topic or a narrow set of interests, repeatedly push polarizing, sensational, or otherwise disturbing content or encourage users to stay on longer or come back often. But rather than banning recommendations altogether, I would prefer a more balanced approach that allows them to help users discover age-appropriate and diverse content without trapping them in a cycle of endless engagement or funneling them into increasingly narrow rabbit holes.
As anyone who uses Netflix or other streaming services has likely noticed, recommendation algorithms can be genuinely useful. For me, they help narrow the enormous number of available programs to ones I’m likely to enjoy, and they often do a surprisingly good job based on my past viewing habits. I once configured Facebook to show my feed in chronological order without any content recommendations, but I wound up turning the algorithm back on because the feed became boring,
But there’s an important difference between streaming services and social media. A recommendation to watch a movie or TV show isn’t the same as an endless stream of content designed to maximize engagement. On social media, algorithms may promote increasingly polarizing, sensational, sexual, graphic, violent, or confrontational content because those posts are more likely to capture attention and keep users scrolling or responding.
I see examples of this almost daily on my Facebook feed, where controversial or confrontational posts attract dozens or even hundreds of comments. The resulting arguments, trolling and nasty exchanges can signal to the algorithm that the content is engaging, prompting it to show those posts to even more people who are likely to react and further amplify the conversation.
I would definitely recommend keeping teens away from content like this and also making it easier for adults to avoid it if they chose.
Steps in the right direction
Even though this legislation isn’t yet law, Instagram has already taken some steps to enhance teen safety, including reducing the risk that teens become fixated on a single type of content. In January 2024, Meta announced a series of new protections aimed at making Instagram and Facebook more age-appropriate for teens. The company said it would automatically place all teen accounts into its most restrictive content-control settings, limit exposure to sensitive content related to issues such as self-harm and eating disorders, restrict certain search terms, and encourage teens to adopt stronger privacy settings. Meta said the changes were designed to reduce exposure to potentially harmful content and create safer online experiences for younger users.
As a member of Meta’s Safety Advisory Council, I supported these changes, but I agree that more can be done, including additional limits on algorithmic recommendations. That said, I don’t believe it’s necessary to eliminate algorithms altogether. Recommendation systems can be useful in helping people discover content that is relevant and appropriate to their interests. Any company sophisticated enough to design algorithms that maximize engagement should also be capable of developing systems that help users find valuable content without encouraging excessive or unhealthy use.
The First Amendment doesn’t have an age limit
One reason I’m reluctant to support outright bans is that, unlike alcohol, tobacco, and other products we restrict for minors, social media is fundamentally about speech. Young people use it to consume information, express themselves and engage with others. These activities are protected by the First Amendment, which does not impose age limits on the right to free expression. The First Amendment applies to governments not companies, but any government laws that restrict speech could be challenged in court.
Of course, there must be reasonable safeguards. Most of us agree that children should not have access to pornography and other clearly harmful content. But we also want young people to be able to participate in conversations, share their views, learn from others and engage in civic and social life, whether online or offline. The challenge is to protect children from harm without unnecessarily restricting their ability to communicate and consume and create content.
Parental controls can have unintended consequences
Although I fully understand why many legislators want to empower parents to limit and monitor their teens’ use of social media, it’s also worth recognizing that some young people may have legitimate reasons to seek information or communities without parental oversight. This can be especially true for LGBTQ+ youth looking for support, teens questioning their identity, or young people whose religious, political or social views differ from those of their parents. Parents generally act in their children’s best interests, but not every family agrees on every issue. Online communities can sometimes provide information, support and a sense of belonging that may not be available at home. In extreme cases, teens may be seeking help because they are experiencing abuse, neglect or other serious problems within their families.
Bottom line: It is time to regulate social media so that teens can enjoy its many benefits while reducing its risks. But the focus should be on sensible legislation that requires companies to make their products safer and more age-appropriate, rather than on broad bans that prevent young people from accessing platforms that have become important tools for communication, learning, self-expression and community.
Disclosure: Larry Magid is CEO of ConnectSafely, a nonprofit internet safety organization that has received financial support from social media companies, including Meta, Snap and TikTok.
