Meta Says the Science Does Not Support Teen Social Media Bans

Listen to the article
6 min

Amid ongoing discussion around increased restrictions on teen social media use, in many regions, Meta has published a response of sorts to the main claims being leveled against social media, and its own platforms specifically, in regards to negative impacts.

Which is in line with Meta’s ongoing opposition to teen social media bans, that social media itself should not be the sole focus of ire, and on balance, is not the main cause of teen health concerns.

In this respect, Meta says that social media is being targeted as a scapegoat of sorts, while real harms and concerns are likely getting overlooked.

As explained by Meta:

“Recently, a number of lawsuits have attempted to place the blame for teen mental health struggles squarely on social media companies. But this oversimplifies a serious issue. Clinicians and researchers find that mental health is a deeply complex and multifaceted issue, and trends regarding teens’ well-being aren’t clear-cut or universal. Narrowing the challenges faced by teens to a single factor ignores the scientific research and the many stressors impacting young people today, like academic pressure, school safety, socio-economic challenges, and substance abuse.”

Many of these claims have stemmed from expose reports which suggest that Meta ignored mental health impacts, in favor of massive growth, while also burying its own research when it showed links between social media use and teen mental harms.

Meta has denied any wrongdoing in each case, and claims to be working to address any and all concerns highlighted by such studies. But the combination of increased teen reliance on social media for connectivity and entertainment, along with negative perception of social media more broadly, does seem to be working against it, in the court of public opinion at least.

Indeed, Meta says that various legal cases in this area have “selectively cited Meta’s internal documents to construct a misleading narrative,” which suggests that Facebook, Instagram and WhatsApp have harmed teens, and that Meta has prioritized growth over their well-being.

“These claims don’t reflect reality. The evidence will show a company deeply and responsibly confronting tough questions, conducting research, listening to parents, academics, and safety experts, and taking action.”

That public pressure has also extended to the political domain, as politicians latch onto any option that could help them win votes.

In response to these claims, Meta has outlined the various measures that it’s taken to improve protections for teen users, and provide support wherever it can. It’s also detailed its ongoing industry partnerships, and its work to continue to improve its systems in this respect.

And in contrast to many negative reports, Meta says that social media does actually have significant positives for young users:

“Social media provides important benefits for teens. It can create a sense of belonging, especially for those who might struggle to find community elsewhere. It can open opportunities that they wouldn’t have had otherwise, like helping them grow a following for their art or music pursuits, show their athletic talents to potential recruiters, or even start a small business. The science backs this up. As well as showing that social media does not have a population-level impact on adolescent mental health, the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine consensus report devotes an entire chapter to the potential benefits of social media for teens.”

Which is mostly correct.

In the 2024 National Academies report on the impacts of social media on teens, which Meta is referencing, it explains that:

“The science suggests that some features of social media function can harm some young people’s mental health. These include, but are not limited to, algorithmically driven distortions of reality exacerbating harmful content and disinformation, the distraction away from time that can otherwise be used in more healthy ways, and the creation of opportunities where youth can be abused or exploited. However, there are also several ways in which social media improve the lives of youth, including the creation of opportunities for community among more marginalized youth, and the opportunity for fun and joy for the vast majority of users. This balance lies at the heart of the relation between social media and mental health.”

So, essentially, it can have positive and negative impacts, and it’s interesting that Meta’s criticizing others of cherry picking data while it’s doing the very same thing.

But this is the baseline of all of the social platforms’ arguments against increased regulation in this respect, that some people will have negative experiences, that can be harmful, while for others, social platforms will play highly positive, beneficial role.

Which one is more significant is hard to quantify, but Meta’s saying that the data to support increased teen restrictions is limited, and through its ongoing work to improve its safety and support measures, it’s actually a better option than letting your teens use other, less-regulated, less safe apps and sites.

Which is what they’ll do. The concept that we can somehow put the genie back in the bottle, and get teens to stop using the internet and go out and ride their pushbikes instead, is unrealistic, and simply doesn’t bear out in any evidence. Kids aren’t going back to kicking a ball and building cubby houses, they’ll just find another online service which enables them to connect, because online connection is now so pervasive and so present, that it’s a part of the structure of our society.

You can be a realist or an idealist, but not both in this respect.

There’s also still no realistic application of effective teen social media restriction, and no evidence based on such to suggest that this will work.

Australia is currently running the biggest live test of this, with its increased social media restrictions for teens, which ban all those aged under 16 from all the major social apps.

So how’s that working out? Well, despite the platforms banning millions of teen accounts (Meta says that it’s removed 540k teen accounts on its own), I can tell you that most teens have immediately found workarounds, and are still accessing their apps of choice. Sure, one account might get cut off, but you can just start a new one, and the process of detecting and removing accounts based on age seems very hit and miss.

Which is why improved digital literacy is a better way to go than restrictions, because again, social media is now such a crucial part of how we connect.

That’s not going to change, so we need to evolve, rather than trying to reawaken times past.