Originally published January 27, 2026 in EurekAlert!
Image courtesy of Margaux Jacks. UVA Media Contact: Emma Candelier
When Australia enacted a national law last week banning social media use for children under 16, it became one of the first democracies to attempt such a sweeping intervention. The policy has drawn global attention not only for its implications for young people’s mental health, but also for what it signals about the future of technology governance.
“This is not just another country experimenting with regulation,” said Aaron Martin, assistant professor of data science and media studies at the University of Virginia. “When a real democracy passes and implements a law like this, it sends a powerful signal.” Other governments, he noted, can now point to Australia as precedent.
The law reflects mounting concern about the role social media plays in young people’s lives, but UVA experts caution that the evidence and the outcomes are far from straightforward.
What the research actually shows
“There is no question that social media can sometimes have harmful effects,” said Bethany Teachman, Commonwealth professor of psychology and co-director of UVA’s Thriving Youth in a Digital Environment (TYDE) initiative. “But the evidence for a general negative impact of social media on mental health is not clear-cut.”
Some studies link increased social media use to higher levels of anxiety or depression, she explained, while others find no effect. In some cases, mental health challenges appear to come first, with increased online engagement following rather than causing distress.
“It’s not a simple story,” Teachman said. “What teens do online probably matters more than exactly how much time they spend.”
For example, she noted, social media can exacerbate harm when it fuels negative social comparison, disrupts sleep, or replaces in-person connection. In those cases, the problem may be less about social media itself and more about what it displaces.
Connection, isolation, and unintended effects
Australia’s law creates an unusual situation in which, at least in theory, all children under 16 will be offline at the same time. Teachman called it “a very interesting experiment,” but emphasized that outcomes will depend heavily on what fills the gap.
“Simply taking away social media doesn’t itself address teens’ loneliness and isolation,” she said.
She also raised concerns about who might be most affected. “The impacts of social media on mental health are very clearly not the same for everyone,” Teachman said, pointing to research showing that some teens, particularly LGBTQ+ youth, rely on online spaces for support and identity exploration.
A total ban, she warned, could also limit opportunities to help teens develop healthy online habits. “We lose key opportunities to scaffold engagement with social media,” she said, adding that there is “nothing magical about age 16” when it comes to readiness for managing digital risks.
Privacy, enforcement, and workarounds
Beyond mental health, the law raises significant questions about privacy and enforcement. Restricting access requires age verification systems that often rely on biometric technologies, such as facial analysis.
“These tools were originally developed in security contexts,” Martin said. “Now they’re being repurposed for online safety.”
While such systems are becoming more accurate, they are also intrusive. Requiring people to scan their faces to access everyday online services, Martin said, marks a significant shift in how personal data is collected and its use normalized.
Both experts also expect teens to find ways around the restrictions. Teachman expressed particular concern about what that could mean for safety. “A serious concern is that the ban will lead young adolescents to do more of their online activity secretly,” she said. “That raises significant concerns about there being less opportunity for oversight and support.”
A broader question of responsibility
For Martin, Australia’s law reflects growing frustration with technology companies that have struggled to protect young users.
“It’s unrealistic to put all of the responsibility on parents,” he said. “These companies have incredible resources, and in many cases, a financial interest in keeping people, especially young people, engaged.”
The result, he said, is a policy experiment that could shape global debates about regulation, innovation, and civil liberties.
Teachman emphasized that whatever the policy outcome, conversation remains essential. “Talk to your teens,” she said. “Check in. Ask what they’re noticing about how their life online and offline impacts their sleep, mood, and relationships. Having regular conversations makes it more likely they’ll tell you when they need help.”
A democratic experiment with global consequences
Martin described Australia’s law as a large-scale policy experiment driven by legitimate concern but shaped by unresolved technical and political risks.
“I’m encouraged that they’re trying to do something,” he said. “Because we will learn. Is it effective? What works? What doesn’t?”
At the same time, he cautioned that the technology required to enforce the ban is still immature. The challenge, Martin said, is that even well-intentioned regulation can falter when policy goals collide with technical reality.
More broadly, Martin emphasized that Australia’s decision will not be interpreted in isolation. “This gives countries around the world an opportunity, and an excuse, to say, if it’s okay for Australia, then of course it’s okay for us,” he said.
That dynamic is especially concerning, he noted, when it comes to less democratic governments. While Australia may frame the law around child safety and public well-being, similar policies elsewhere could be used to justify broader restrictions on speech, access to information, or political expression.
Weighing protection and consequence
Taken together, Martin and Teachman view Australia’s social media ban as a serious attempt to protect young people, but one that underscores how difficult it is to regulate technology at scale.
Australia’s new law promises to hold platforms accountable, but Martin warns such interventions can normalize invasive enforcement and set precedents that other governments misuse. Teachman pointed to the limits of the evidence, noting that social media’s effects on teens are not uniform and that bans risk cutting off connection without addressing underlying needs.
Their perspectives converge on a central tension: broad technology restrictions may force long-overdue action, but without careful design and ongoing evaluation, they risk creating new harm even as they aim to prevent others.
As Martin remarked, “It’s a band-aid on a much bigger issue.”
