A new digital and artificial intelligence strategy  says the Coalition will explore options to introduce age restrictions for social media at the EU-level, but is prepared to legislate domestically if progress stalls.  

The All Ireland Science Media Centre asked experts to comment.

Dr Eoin Whelan, Professor in Business Analytics & Society, University of Galway, comments: 

“If the Government’s aim is to enhance the well-being and mental health of our youth, then restricting social media for under 16s is not the logical starting point.  First, we are told social media is a massive problem for our youth, but we should question if this is actually true.  Across the scientific literature, there is very little evidence saying that social media leads to a decline in well-being for youth.  

“A recent consensus report published by the American National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM) comprehensively examined all the relevant literature and surmised that the “committee’s review of the literature did not support the conclusion that social media causes changes in adolescent health at the population level”.  My own research with adolescents in Ireland does find a negative relationship between social media and adolescent well-being, however the effect is very weak and not clinically relevant. When I compared other factors which impact the well-being of teenagers – such as having supportive parents and teachers, feeling safe in their neighbourhood, availability of social activities etc – then social media use ranks well down the list.  

“Second, similar technology restrictions have been tried before and they have had little positive impact. South Korea tried to restrict video gaming in the later hours – the Goldilocks Law. As a results of the restrictions, gamers got about 3 minutes extra sleep when the restrictions were brought in, but they ended up spending more time gaming during the day. So the restrictions actually increased the time they spent gaming. Those restrictions have since been reversed.  Third, a blanket social media restriction may isolate some youths instead of helping them.  Many teens benefit from using social media, particularly those who would be marginalised otherwise.

“I am not saying social media is harmless. Some young people do have bad experiences online. That is clear. Enforcing restrictions just says that they are responsible, not the social media companies. If we really want to find out if and how using social media harms and benefits our youth, we need the social media companies to make their data available to researchers.  With this data, we can identify specific threats and develop targeted interventions to address those, not blanket restrictions.  I think the Government’s focus should be on getting access to the data from social media companies, and let the evidence drive policy.”

Declaration of interest: I declare that I have no personal, professional, financial, or academic conflicts of interest in relation to this paper. I have no affiliations, collaborations, nor prior relationships with any of the authors that could have influenced my interpretation or evaluation of the work.

Dr Ruth Melia, Associate Professor in Clinical Psychology at University of Limerick, comments:

“We are seeing unprecedented levels of mental health distress in young people in Ireland currently, unfortunately reflective of similar trends internationally. Some services have reported an increase in referrals of up to 23% when compared to last year alone. In parallel, the European Commission reported that 25% of Europeans struggled to access mental health support for themselves or a family member.

“I would be concerned however that placing the blame for this increase in distress entirely on the use of social media, distracts from more fundamental societal issues that we know impact youth mental health substantially. While placing the blame on one factor is enticing, there is a risk of looking past longstanding and established causes of mental health difficulties that require much more complex and fundamental changes. Long-established factors such as adverse childhood experiences (abuse, neglect, bullying), poor family relationships, and socioeconomic disadvantage can be overlooked in the drive to identify one cause.

“Undoubtedly, problematic social media use, particularly when it involves adolescent girls engaged in upward social comparison, and where there is a predisposition to mental health conditions, is clearly correlated with poor mental health. The impact that smartphone usage can have on sleep and activity levels is also well-known. More robust standards and regulation are certainly needed to support the safety of young people in the digital environment and the companies who stand to profit from this engagement are key to this. We also need to ensure that young people, families, and educators have the information and support they need to ensure the safety of young people online.

“The voice of young people has largely been missing from this debate to-date. I was particularly pleased to be involved in the co-production of this youth-led policy brief. It includes the views and recommendations of a group of incredibly insightful and compassionate young people who have made very sensible and actionable recommendations

“Many of these recommendations align with the recently published Online Health Taskforce established by the Department of Health.

“I would be reluctant to endorse blanket restrictions as they mirror approaches taken historically, such as high levels of involuntary inpatient admissions, that ultimately undermined the rights of individuals and failed to address underlying structural inequalities. I would have a preference for a rights-based approach, grounded in youth voice, with those who stand to profit from young people’s engagement in social media held to greater account.”

Declaration of interest: I declare no conflict of interest. I receive no funding from industry. I currently receive research funding from the Health Research Board to conduct research in the area of youth mental health as part of the PROACT Project. 

Dr Lorna Staines, Assistant Professor, Department of Psychology, Maynooth University, comments: 

“Social media is a central part of young people’s lives today, estimates from 2024 show 95% of peopleage 16-29 in Ireland use social media. Research on Irish teenagers (age 15-17) shows that 28% say they spend more than 4 hours a day on social media, 38% of girls and 21% of boys.

“Social media can be an important source of connection for young people, and offers opportunities for people to express themselves. It can also be a valuable source of information; 65% of young women (age 16-29) use the internet to find mental health information and advice. My own ongoing research also shows that 74% of Irish teenagers (age 15-17) reported using social media specifically as a source of mental health information.

“However, for Irish teenagers, these long periods of time spent on social media appear to be harmful. The Planet Youth study, is examining a range of experiences of young people across Ireland (age 15-17). In both 2020, and 2023, high social media use (4+ hours/day) was associated with significant increased risk for mental health difficulties; a 2-fold increased risk for girls in 2020, and a 62% increased risk for both girls and boys in 2023.

“Simply banning social media for under 16s can feel tempting, following on from Denmark and Australia, but how effective are age bans? For example, we know that 34% of Irish teenagers reported binge drinking despite it being illegal, so the efficacy of a ban on actually stopping Irish youth is questionable.

“Algorithms are designed to keep your attention, encourage you to check the platform frequently, and all platforms have measures of how successful you are (likes, favourites, shares). Simultaneously, there are concerning patterns of pushing extreme content to drive this engagement. Social media platforms are still refusing to even share data with researchers to accurately assess the full scope of how social media impacts young people.

“The question really becomes, why the government feel that it’s right to limit young people’s access to platforms, rather than hold social media platforms accountable for the harms currently built into them?”

Declaration of interest: “I have no conflicts of interest with what I’ve reported”

Dr Daragh Bradshaw, Associate Professor, Department of Psychology, University of Limerick, comments: 

“Australia’s proposed social media ban for children is intended to protect young people from online harms and declining mental health. While the aim is well-intentioned, the policy adopts an overly restrictive approach that is not well supported by current research on adolescent digital well-being.

“Empirical evidence suggests that social media use is not inherently harmful. Gómez Moreno et al. (2022) in their Science Foundation funded research, demonstrate that adolescents experience both positive and negative outcomes from social media engagement, with well-being shaped primarily by the nature and quality of interactions rather than by use alone. Social media can support peer connection, social inclusion, and emotional support, all of which are vital protective factors during adolescence. A blanket ban risks eliminating these benefits instead of addressing harmful online practices.

“The policy also reflects a top-down, adult-led model of regulation that adolescents often resist. Gómez Moreno and colleagues argue that young people tend to disengage from government and school initiatives because adults are perceived as an “outgroup.” In contrast, peer-led and group-based approaches foster greater engagement and behavioural change by validating adolescents’ lived experiences.

“Enforcement presents further challenges. Age-based bans are difficult to regulate and may push children toward covert or unmoderated platforms, reducing opportunities for guidance and digital literacy education. Research indicates that adolescents already possess moderate digital awareness and are willing to adjust harmful behaviours when supported through education rather than prohibition.

“Overall, the ban places responsibility on children and families while neglecting platform accountability. Evidence suggests that education, youth participation, and regulation of platform design are more effective than exclusionary policies (Polizzi, 2021).”

Declaration of interest: None received