Research to date shows that social media bans are not the clear solution they are hoped to be.Katie Collins/Reuters
Kara Brisson-Boivin is the director of research at MediaSmarts.
Liberal Party delegates passed a non-binding resolution this month calling for a minimum age of 16 for social-media accounts, with Manitoba and other provincial governments proposing similar bans. The impulse is understandable. Australia did it first, and three-quarters of Canadians say they support the idea.
So why are many online safety experts urging caution?
Because good intentions are not the same as good policy, and the evidence around this issue paints a complicated picture that requires careful consideration.
Canadians are right to be alarmed. An Angus Reid survey conducted this month found that 94 per cent of Canadians are concerned about the impact of social media on youth mental health and 90 per cent worry about cyberbullying. These are not manufactured anxieties. Platforms have been designed with the goal to capture and hold attention – not to protect young people’s well-being.
Q&A: Would Australia-style limits on social media be a good idea in Canada?
But research to date shows that bans are not the clear solution they are hoped to be.
Australia’s ban is so new that its effectiveness remains unknown. Early anecdotal reports suggest youth are finding ways around restrictions or moving to less regulated spaces. We also know that even before the ban, most eight-to-10-year-olds in Australia were using social media well before the existing minimum age of 13 (which is also true of Canadian youth). Existing age limits have done little to keep children off these platforms.
Much of the public debate has centred on screen time and overall social-media use, which may seem like common sense: more time on social media means more harm, so banning the platforms should solve the problem. But researchers have long found that screen time alone is a poor predictor of harm. Harm is driven by specific experiences – such as social comparison and exposure to risky content – and the negative self-reactions these provoke. General social-media use shows little consistent link to negative outcomes. What matters is context, content and quality of engagement.
A blanket ban cannot distinguish between a teenager being pulled into a spiral of social comparison by a recommendation algorithm and one showcasing their cooking skills or learning guitar from a tutorial. It treats all online engagement – and all young people – as the same. The research tells us they are not.
Perhaps most importantly, one-size-fits-all bans risk driving technology use underground, eroding trust between young people and supportive adults, and pushing children into less regulated corners of the internet. When teens get around rules, they become less likely to talk about negative experiences for fear of consequences.
None of this means Canada should do nothing. The urgency is real. But the response must match the complexity of the problem.
MediaSmarts has long called for a national strategy for digital-media literacy, and we are calling for it again now. That strategy must do three things.
First, it must start with research. While concern about youth online safety has never been higher, funding to understand it is hard to come by. Canada needs sustained research that goes beyond screen time – examining with young people what they encounter online, how they experience it and what genuinely protects them.
Second, it must hold platforms accountable through enforceable regulation. This means safety-by-design requirements, transparency around algorithmic systems, duty-of-care obligations and meaningful consequences for non-compliance. Age-based bans risk letting platforms off the hook, shifting responsibility onto youth and families rather than the companies whose design choices shape these environments.
Opinion: A blanket ban won’t solve social media’s ills – but it can be an effective temporary tool
Third, it must invest in digital-media literacy education – not only for children and youth, but for parents, caregivers, educators and communities. Parents are making consequential decisions about their children’s digital lives with little guidance. Teachers are expected to enforce device bans while at the same time trying to prepare students for a digital future, often without adequate training or support.
When the evidence isn’t clear, a sweeping ban risks doing more harm than good, offering the appearance of a solution while missing the opportunity to understand what works best. We’re not arguing against action. We’re arguing against the wrong action.
Canada has an opportunity to claim a leadership role in charting a different path – one grounded in evidence, built on genuine platform accountability and supported by meaningful investment in digital-media literacy.