Would you support your child being banned from social media?

“Can I have Snapchat? When can I get Snapchat? The only thing I want for my birthday is Snapchat. I will have zero friends without Snapchat. Seriously, Mom. Snapchat is not social media—you just don’t understand because all you had was Facebook. This isn’t fair. Everybody has Snapchat. I am literally the only one who doesn’t.”

It’s easy to dismiss this as preteen hyperbole. But my son isn’t entirely wrong. According to MediaSmarts, 86% of kids aged 9 to 11 years have at least one social media platform, despite nearly all platforms requiring users to be at least 13 years old.[1]

His pleas make me wonder: Am I protecting him or making him a social outlier? Am I preserving his childhood or becoming the gatekeeper of his friendships? I worry about opening the floodgates to a world where children are expected to post, respond, accumulate followers, remain perpetually available, and take the risk of being “blocked” into social exile.

In May 2026, JAMA Pediatrics published the largest longitudinal meta-analysis to date on digital media use and childhood development, encompassing nearly 19 000 participants (153 studies, 115 cohorts).[2] The paper looked only at longitudinal studies, meaning that the digital media exposure preceded the outcomes. The authors concluded that digital media use was consistently associated with poorer child and adolescent health and development outcomes, particularly for social media.

Social media was linked to higher rates of depression, self-injurious thoughts and behaviors, internalizing behaviors, externalizing behaviors, poorer self-perception, poorer academic achievement, increased substance use, and problematic Internet use. Importantly, not all digital media was equally harmful. Video games showed a more nuanced picture, with some negative associations but also a small positive association with attention and executive functioning.

The authors suggest that social comparison and the constant feedback inherent in social platforms can make younger adolescents particularly vulnerable. They describe social media as a “low-level transdiagnostic risk factor” with an effect size similar to poor diet and physical inactivity. While this does not prove causation, and it remains possible that vulnerable adolescents are drawn to social media, the accumulating evidence of harm to children should not be ignored.[2]

The lead author, Samantha Teague, is based in Australia, the first country to prohibit children under 16 years of age from holding accounts on major social media platforms. That 2024 legislation sparked international debate and has influenced policy discussions around the world. For example, in July 2026, the Special Panel on Child Safety Online presented its findings to the European Commission president as the European Union considers age-appropriate restrictions to platforms.[3]

Canada is moving in a similar direction with the introduction of the Safe Social Media Act (Bill C-34) on 10 June 2026.[4] Part 1, the Digital Safety Act, proposes new requirements for social media and artificial intelligence services, such as a minimum age requirement of 16 to access social media accounts, regulations on chatbots, and a duty to make specific types of sexual content inaccessible to better protect children. Part 2 would see the establishment of the proposed Digital Safety Commission of Canada to administer the framework. Parliamentary debate is expected to take place in the fall of 2026.

Should physicians support age-based restrictions on social media, or should we instead focus on harm reduction through education about content literacy, sleep hygiene, and online habits?

At this stage of my life, I support stronger government regulation.[5] I’ve heard the argument that this represents state substitution for parenting, but I see it differently. Public policy has long helped parents raise healthier children by mitigating transdiagnostic risk factors such as tobacco and alcohol.[6] Social media platforms are engineered by some of the world’s most sophisticated technology companies to capture attention and maximize engagement. I don’t believe parents alone should be expected to compete with that.
—Caitlin Dunne, MD, FRCSC

References

1.    MediaSmarts. New research reveals the online lives of youth during the pandemic [news release]. 3 November 2022. Accessed 14 July 2026. https://mediasmarts.ca/press-centre/press-releases/new-research-reveals-online-lives-youth-during-pandemic.

2.    Teague S, Somoray K, Shatte A, et al. Digital media use and child health and development: A systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA Pediatr 2026;180:510-517. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamapediatrics.2026.0085.

3.    European Commission. Statement by President von der Leyen with the co-chairs of the Special Panel on Child Safety Online. 12 July 2026. Accessed 14 July 2026. https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/statement_26_1590.

4.    Government of Canada. Bill C-34, the Safe Social Media Act. Modified 3 July 2026. Accessed 14 July 2014. www.canada.ca/en/canadian-heritage/services/safe-social-media-act.html.

5.    Roberts J. I’m a child psychologist. Here’s what I think about social media bans. The Globe and Mail. 13 July 2026. Accessed 14 July 2026. www.theglobeandmail.com/life/advice/article-social-media-bill-restrictions-age-16-developmental-progress/.

6.    Jivraj J. The verdict is in: Social media’s harms are a burden families should no longer have to manage. The Globe and Mail. Updated 28 March 2026. Accessed 14 July 2026. www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/article-social-media-harms-meta-youtube-verdict-children-families/.