Anna Polyviou
The discussion about banning social media for children and teenagers has recently come into sharp focus, prompting both reactions and concern. In the following interview, Dr. Elisavet Kiourti, CEO of Humane Technology and an academic in Digital Technologies, examines the issue with a research-based perspective. She describes real risks such as self-image issues, cyberbullying, and sleep disruption, along with positive aspects like social connection, self-expression, and a sense of belonging.
She also explains why bans are not the most effective solution, pointing out that the strongest approaches combine multiple strategies. She refers to early findings from countries that have already tried bans. She stresses the responsibility of the platforms themselves, which is often downplayed in public discussions, and calls for a more complete approach that includes education, parental involvement, stronger critical thinking skills, and regulation of the platforms. The goal is to better prepare children for the digital world.
What are the risks for children who use social media? Are there really risks?
There are risks, but they are not absolute or the same for every child. Children are affected in different ways and to different degrees. International research shows that the most consistent risks relate to self-image, comparison, exposure to unrealistic standards, cyberbullying, and sleep disruption from excessive use. This is especially important for ages 11 to 14, when identity is still developing and social media can amplify existing vulnerabilities.
At the same time, it is important to avoid oversimplifying the issue. Large studies show that the connection between social media use and mental health is usually small and depends on how it is used. Factors include the type of content, the amount of time spent, the way someone engages with it, and the individual child. There are also clear benefits such as social connection, expression, and a sense of belonging. Social media is not inherently dangerous, but it can become harmful when there are no boundaries, guidance, or critical thinking skills.
What do we hope to achieve by banning access?
From a policy perspective, a ban looks like a direct and simple solution. If access is reduced, exposure to risk should also decrease. It also sends a strong message that the state is protecting children. However, this idea assumes that removing access automatically reduces negative effects.
In reality, the situation is more complex. Social media is already part of daily life for children and teenagers and plays a key role in how they socialize. A ban does not just remove a tool. It disrupts an entire social environment.
Is banning the most effective approach?
No. It may be the fastest and most politically straightforward option, but it is not the most effective over time. Broad bans focus on control rather than helping children build skills. They do not teach how to manage use, develop critical thinking, or prepare children for the time when they will inevitably use these platforms.
Research shows that the most effective approaches combine several elements, including digital education, active involvement from parents, and regulation of the platforms. A ban on its own addresses mainly the visible effects rather than the underlying causes.
Are there data from countries where bans have already been implemented?
It is still too early to draw firm conclusions. Early findings show partial compliance. Many minors continue to access platforms through alternative accounts or technical workarounds. This does not mean the measures have no impact, but it suggests their effectiveness is limited without additional actions.
There is also not enough evidence yet to show long-term improvements in mental health as a direct result of these bans.
Can a ban actually work in practice?
It can have some effect, but not in the way it is often described. In digital environments, restrictions can usually be bypassed, and teenagers in particular know how to do this. When social media is already part of everyday social life, bans tend to shift activity into spaces that are less visible and harder to monitor.
This creates a difficult situation. A policy designed to protect children can reduce the ability to guide and support them.
Which age group would be most affected by staying away from social media?
The biggest impact appears in early to middle adolescence, roughly ages 12 to 15. At this stage, social media is not just entertainment. It is a central space for social interaction and identity development. Sudden removal can feel like social exclusion, which can have immediate effects on emotional and social well-being.
For younger children, where habits are not yet established, delaying access is more realistic and often more effective.
Why is the responsibility of companies not discussed enough?
The responsibility of platforms is critical, but it often gets less attention in public discussions. Platforms are designed to maximize engagement through algorithm-driven feeds, reward systems, and endless scrolling. These are deliberate design choices.
Shifting responsibility only to parents or children may be convenient, but it leaves out an important part of the issue. Without stronger rules around platform design, transparency in algorithms, limits on features that encourage excessive use, and better protection for minors, efforts remain incomplete.
What advice would you give to parents?
For parents whose children already use social media, the goal should not be total control. A better approach is guided independence. This includes setting clear boundaries and having open conversations about what children see, how they feel, and how they interpret content. The focus should be not only on time spent but also on the quality of the experience.
For parents of younger children, delaying access remains one of the most effective strategies. This works best when it is explained and introduced gradually, rather than enforced without discussion. Children need time to build the skills required to navigate these environments.
In the end, the goal is not to keep children out of the digital world, which is not realistic. The goal is to prepare them to navigate it with awareness, clear limits, and resilience.
