In 2025, Australia put into place a social media ban for adolescents.

New research finds that it failed to prevent adolescent social media use, as teens found work-arounds.

The broader research finds mixed evidence of harm from social media and suggests moderate use may be best.

Adolescents' social lives are tied up in online communication, so blanket bans may backfire.

From the news cycle—and a new popular science bestseller—you’d think that Australia’s 2025 decision to ban social media use for adolescents was an easy win. Social media, the narrative goes, has created a teen mental health crisis. The correlation between social media use and adolescent depression, as social psychologist Jonathan Haidt has said, is larger than that between cancer and smoking. Of course, researchers Amy Orben and Andrew Przybylski, after conducting a large-scale meta-analysis combining data from hundreds of thousands of people, found that correlation was about the same as that of well-being and eating potatoes or wearing glasses. Well, a country decided to ban social media before it banned potatoes, and it’s 2026 now. What is the research on this policy showing?

In a new study in the BMJ, researchers found that the new law… completely failed at even preventing adolescents from accessing social media platforms. A team led by Courtney Barnes at the University of Newcastle tracked 436 Australian teenagers before and after the ban and found, essentially, nothing. More than 85 percent of those under 16 were still on the restricted platforms three months in, mostly through their own accounts.........

© Psychology Today