Barring young people from social media platforms may not be enough to keep them safe unless it forms part of a wider online protection plan, experts have told The National.
A co-ordinated strategy that takes into account the need for education on best online practices for young people and their parents would be much more effective in addressing issues around digital safety, the experts said.
Several countries have imposed bans on people under a certain age using social media. The UAE is among those seeking to enhance online protection, with plans to prevent under-15s from using social media from June 2027.
"The challenge is different countries have different approaches to this. There needs to be joined-up thinking," said Wayne Denner, co-founder of Beat the Cyber Bully, an initiative that helps educate parents and children on digital safety across the UK, Ireland and UAE.
"Some approaches may be more effective than others. The challenge is legislation often only covers certain apps, games or platforms and there are others that fall outside of this. It means that bans might not completely close loopholes around inappropriate content, exploitation or abuse. That's why we still want parental involvement and schools guiding young people on appropriate and responsible use of technology."
The UAE's ban, announced in June, is to come into force after a one-year grace period, during which social media companies must bring their services in line with the protocols.
Australia was the first country to introduce a social media ban. Anyone under the age of 16 is barred from using platforms such as Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, Snapchat, X and Reddit. But that does not mean that young people are unable to access other forms of social media.
Lemon8, which is owned by TikTok's parent company ByteDance, surged in popularity in Australia after it emerged that it was not included in the initial list of banned apps for under-16s. It was later added.
"There are lesser-known platforms that parents and teachers aren't aware of," Mr Denner said. "There could be bad actors operating on those platforms who know they might not be as moderated as heavily as elsewhere. This presents a safeguarding risk.
"It can be something of a whack-a-mole scenario. As soon as you bring one of these platforms under the umbrella, another will emerge."
Taking hard line
Other countries have also announced social media measures. The UK's ban for under-16s is also to come into effect from June next year. Under-15s will also be stopped from using social media in France from next year.
Nations including Spain, Denmark, Greece, Norway, Indonesia and Canada have also announced proposals for similar bans. The EU announced the EU Kids Act last month, which proposes social media bans for under-13s, with limited accounts for those aged between 13 and 15.
Educating parents on the dangers around young people having access to the online world is a crucial step in bolstering safety, Mr Denner said. "You should not be handing your child a phone if you haven't received some kind of education on the risks involved," he said.
"You shouldn't be able to buy a smartphone for your child without some sort of education on it. You wouldn't be allowed to let a young person drive a car without being qualified. It should also be illegal to introduce technology to children without safeguards in place."
Last month, Meta, which owns Facebook, Instagram, WhatsApp and Threads, agreed on a major settlement over allegations about the addictiveness of its social platforms for children. According to court filings, the social media company could pay up to $17.1 billion, after action from 47 US states and Washington, DC, and other American territories.
Bigger picture
The success of efforts to bar young people from social media platforms will depend on how such restrictions are implemented, said Prof Nathalie Martial-Braz, chancellor of Sorbonne University Abu Dhabi.
"An age limit works best as one element of a wider approach," she said. "The most promising measures act on the product itself – private accounts by default, no contact from unknown adults, no advertising based on profiling, and limits on features designed to hold attention, such as infinite scroll and autoplay.
"Education matters as much as regulation, and schools and universities have a part to play. Children who will open an account at 15 need to be prepared for it beforehand.
"A single global rule is probably out of reach, since countries have chosen 13, 15 or 16 [years of age]. Shared principles and compatible age-verification standards look more achievable."
Another important factor is ensuring young people are protected against the risks lurking around the corner, as technology advances amid the rapid evolution of artificial intelligence.
"AI has changed the nature of the risk," Prof Martial-Braz said. "It drives the recommendation systems that decide what a young person sees. It can also produce harmful content that did not exist before, such as fabricated images of real people, and a child does not need an account to be affected by that. At the same time, AI is part of the solution.
"I would plead for a sense of proportion. AI offers real benefits for learning, and a university engaged in AI research would be the last to deny it. The question is which uses are appropriate at which age, and with what safeguards. We are better placed to ask it early than we were with social media."
New digital frontiers
But not everyone is in agreement about the efficacy of imposing blanket bans on young people using social media. In December last year, Unicef called for "governments, regulators and companies to work with children and families to build digital environments that are safe, inclusive and respect children’s rights".
The agency warned that "social media was not a luxury for many children, especially those who are isolated or marginalised – it is a lifeline providing access to learning, connection, play and self-expression".
When British authorities announced plans for the ban in June, Kerry Moscogiuri, chief executive of Amnesty International UK, described it as the "right diagnosis but the wrong prescription". She said the onus should fall on social media companies to do more to keep young people safe.
"Too many social media companies have built products and business models that prioritise keeping children engaged for longer, often at the expense of their well-being, privacy and rights," she said at the time. “But the problem is not that children exist on social media, it’s that social media companies have built platforms that are unsafe by design. Banning under-16s risks treating children as the problem rather than addressing the companies and systems that create the risks in the first place."
Dr Katherine Kemp, associate professor at the faculty of law and justice at UNSW Sydney, told The National that broad bans raise issues about data protection and privacy.
For some young people, social media could actually provide a lifeline and help them connect with others, she said. "There are some teenagers who successfully use social media to take part in political debate and advocate causes that are important to them," she added.
"Social media can also provide vital connections for young people who feel isolated because of their gender, sexuality, neurodiversity or ethnic background, especially where they lack connections in their nearby community."
