AS a psychologist and educator myself, I hear the panic from parents every day like clockwork. It’s a tale as old as time: young people need to be protected from the dangers of new, emerging technologies.
In the same way as our parents tried to shield us from comic books and television, we look at the rising rates of teenage anxiety, depression and sleep deprivation-and in the Philippines, mounting cases of school shootings-and we naturally want a simple villain. Social media is the easiest target in the room for the most desperate among us. It is something new and for people who have not grown up with social media, it can be seen as an unknown, evolving presence that can be blamed when a new threat or novel concern arises in younger people, who are digital natives. And while it’s completely understandable that even the best of us end up thinking that, it’s not at all backed by what the science says.
When lawmakers suggest a blanket social media ban for anyone under 18, it sounds like a silver bullet. Flip a switch, cut off access, and suddenly our kids will go back to riding bikes outside and reading books inside. However, it is not that simple.
From a psychological and scientific standpoint, a blanket ban is a lazy non-solution. Let’s look at the data instead of operating on fear. Earlier this year, a major study published in the British Medical Journal (Barnes, 2026) examined the early effects of Australia’s strict Social Media Minimum Age Act. The findings were a massive reality check. The researchers found little to no immediate, substantive reduction in adolescent social media use. More importantly, the ban produced absolutely zero measurable improvements in adolescent mental health, well-being or sleep patterns.
The takeaway is clear: passing a law is not enough. We have to know if it actually works in real life. And right now, the science says sweeping bans fail.
Why do they fail? Because they completely misunderstand adolescent psychology.
When you ban teenagers from a mainstream public space, they don’t stop wanting to connect with their peers. They just find a way to do it where you can’t see them.
In our view, a sweeping blanket ban will only inevitably push young people toward unregulated corners of the internet that will allow them to exercise their right to participate and engage with one another.
If this passes, we will only watch our children migrate from social media sites with flawed safeguards into encrypted messaging boards and fringe platforms with zero moderation, no reporting tools, and a much higher risk of exposure to violent or exploitative content.
Worse, a ban strips away their safety nets. If a teenager is being cyberbullied or, even worse, groomed on an app they are legally banned from using, they may become terrified to ask a parent or a teacher for help. And that is because we don’t protect victims by making their presence in a space illegal. We just guarantee their silence.
Thus, a blanket ban on social media is a dangerous illusion that will do far more harm than good, as it provides a short-term solution to perceived societal problems and may lead to more problematic pathways.
We also have to acknowledge an uncomfortable truth. For many youth, especially those in abusive households or marginalized communities, the internet is their only lifeline. It is where they find crisis support, mental health resources and peers who understand them.
Banning platforms ignores the root of the problem. A teenager scrolling endlessly at 3 a.m. may be dealing with offline stressors, which includes family members and other significant people who supposedly know best for them. Maybe it’s academic burnout, or a lack of safe physical spaces in our cities to hang out. We cannot solve complex offline problems by simply banning an online space due to fear.
Instead of pushing the danger underground, we need to hold ourselves accountable for creating a world that they lean on social media to escape. Absolutely, we need to look at how effective social media protections are. We are not denying the risks and potential harm that younger individuals may face in prolonged social media exposure and early introduction to risky information and concepts.
We could approach perceived problems with social media as one would do in the area of sex education and reproductive health. Instead of labeling sexual intercourse as something bad and coupling it with moral agenda, we can look at it through scientific and developmental lenses, by understanding what our children know about the concept, providing direct information and resources to further understand the concept, providing limits that may relate to social and physical boundaries, and connecting with professionals who may have the expertise in the matter.
Hence, we also need to train parents to equip their kids with digital literacy to navigate risks, rather than pretend we can lock them out of the digital world forever. Instead of deciding what is best for younger individuals with our limited knowledge, looking at what resources we have, and learning more from experts and empirical research can better equip us not just to ‘fix’ what we think is broken, but rather putting safeguards in place and taking charge of the situation from our own contexts and perspectives.
Protecting young people is our ultimate goal. But a ban that feels good on paper while leaving kids more vulnerable in practice is nothing short of abandonment.
Dr. Peejay D. Bengwasan is a Board Member of the Psychological Association of the Philippines and a Professorial Lecturer at the De La Salle University.