Maya Robertson
Meta has stepped up its opposition to proposed bans on teen social media use, arguing that current scientific research does not support claims that social platforms are a primary driver of adolescent mental health problems. The company’s position comes amid growing legal and political pressure in several countries to impose stricter limits on youth access to social networks.
In recent statements and background materials, Meta contends that lawsuits and regulatory proposals targeting social media oversimplify a complex issue. According to the company, adolescent mental health outcomes are influenced by a wide range of factors beyond online platforms, including academic stress, school safety concerns, family dynamics, socio-economic pressures, and substance use. Meta argues that focusing regulation primarily on social media risks overlooking these broader contributors.
The company has also challenged the way its internal research has been used in court cases and public debate. Meta says excerpts from internal documents have been selectively cited to suggest that its platforms knowingly harm teens or that the company prioritized growth over safety. Meta maintains that this framing does not reflect the full scope of its research or its product decisions, which it says have increasingly incorporated safety-related trade-offs.
As part of its defense, Meta has highlighted a series of measures introduced over the past decade to limit risks for younger users. These include restrictions on adult-to-teen messaging, default private accounts for minors, prompts encouraging time limits, and the rollout of “Teen Accounts” with tighter controls over content and contact settings. The company has also expanded parental supervision tools, allowing guardians to set usage limits, review interactions, and restrict access during certain hours.
Meta has further pointed to external research, including findings from the U.S. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, which describe both potential harms and benefits associated with teen social media use. That research notes risks tied to algorithmic amplification, time displacement, and exposure to abuse, while also acknowledging positive effects such as community-building, creative expression, and social support—particularly for marginalized youth. Meta argues that this mixed evidence complicates efforts to justify blanket bans.
The debate is increasingly playing out in policy experiments, most notably in Australia, where a nationwide ban on under-16s using major social platforms has been introduced. While platforms have removed millions of accounts to comply with the law, reports suggest that enforcement is uneven and that many teenagers are finding ways to remain active online. Critics of bans point to these workarounds as evidence that restrictions may shift behavior rather than eliminate it.
Meta has positioned digital literacy, parental involvement, and platform-level safeguards as more practical responses than outright prohibitions. The company argues that as online communication becomes more embedded in daily life, policy approaches will need to adapt to that reality rather than attempt to reverse it. Whether regulators accept that framing remains uncertain, as governments continue to weigh public concern, legal pressure, and emerging data in shaping youth-focused social media policy.
Comments
Loading…