The backlash to social media bans has already begun

Banning social media for minors has, well, gone viral. In less than a year, the world has witnessed a rapid-fire succession of political proposals to restrict youth access to social media: from the left-wing prime minister of Spain to the right-wing prime minister of Greece, the Australian Labor Party leader and a Texan Republican senator, and on to the national agendas of Brazil, Rwanda and, most recently, Vietnam. Creating new government limits to keep young people off digital platforms is increasingly seen as good politics, a popular piece of legislation that touts the protection of kids while tapping into bubbling anger at Big Tech platforms. Three decades into the digital era, policymakers around the world are converging on the idea that much of the time we spend online is not good for us — and that children are the most vulnerable. Yet eight months since Australia’s groundbreaking under-16 social media ban triggered a surge of similar legislation around the world, doubts are already spreading about both the efficacy and unintended side effects of a blanket ban. The rash of new laws and the subsequent backlash is prompting people to ask if social media bans are going too far, too fast — and whether there may be a smarter way to protect kids online than forcing them off. Lorena Giuberti Coutinho, an online safety commissioner for Brazil’s independent data protection authority, told POLITICO that social media bans increasingly appear “quite hard to impose,” and questioned whether global momentum for that approach would persist. “The incentives for teenagers to continue on social media are quite strong because this is where they communicate,” said Coutinho. Brazilian lawmakers passed a law last year that allows teenagers to keep using social media but legally requires platforms to anticipate and reduce potential harm to children. For under-16s, the law also bans targeted advertising and “loot boxes” commonly offered as online gaming rewards, while requiring the availability of parental-control tools. Coutinho said Brazil’s law, which her agency is tasked with implementing, aims to “reach an equilibrium between the benefits that social media and the digital environment provide to children, and the risks.” In the United States, where outright bans could face constitutional challenges on children’s free speech rights, lawmakers have been focused on challenging the platforms’ designs. Even in California, where politicians often outpace Washington on online safety and pursue more aggressive regulations, lawmakers have moved away from a strict, Australia-style ban in recent months. Led by Democratic state assemblymember Josh Lowenthal, Californian lawmakers pared back a proposed teen ban last month to allow under-16s on sites like Instagram and TikTok, as long as the platforms deactivate certain “addictive” features for young users. The Sydney Harbour Bridge is illuminated on December 10, 2025, the first day of the national under-16 social media ban coming into effect. | Brendon Thorne/Getty Images “I expect other countries to learn from our model here in California,” Lowenthal told POLITICO. “For better or for worse, this is the model that’s going to work.” Second wave In the United States, protecting children from social media is a priority among politicians of all partisan stripes — from Texas Senator Ted Cruz to California Governor Gavin Newsom. But no legislative ban for teen users has moved forward at either the state or federal level. There are broad concerns that bans could violate children’s free speech rights by restricting their ability to engage with lawful speech online, as well as pushback from activists, like those in the LGBTQ+ community, who say that social media can also be a place where otherwise isolated youth can stay informed and connect with peers. Instead, the U.S. — home to the top tech giants — is where the effort to protect kids from the ills of being online is being pulled in the direction of platform l