It’s clear that social media can pose significant risks to young people, with studies showing alarming content recommendations even in 40 minutes of browsing. Yet, bans and curfews, while well-intentioned, may not address the root issues.

The UK's proposed curfew for teens and France's ban on platforms for under-15s are just the latest attempts to shield young people from potential harms. But these measures might be misguided. Organizations that have long defended children’s rights see a danger in disconnecting them entirely, as it could exacerbate issues rather than solve them.

For many teens, social media is more than just entertainment; it's a vital space for learning, connecting, and self-expression. It offers access to information, communities, and role models that can be hard to find elsewhere. Banning or heavily restricting platforms might not only fail but could even pose new risks.

The reality is that childhood experiences vary greatly across different regions and socioeconomic backgrounds. What works in one place may not work everywhere. Australia’s attempt at a blanket ban faced significant challenges, with 70% of parents still reporting their children using banned apps despite the restrictions.

Furthermore, implementing bans often comes with unintended consequences. Age verification systems can expose minors to cyber risks and data breaches, while biometric systems show limitations. The focus should be on understanding how social media affects young people and responding with proportionate measures that address structural issues rather than relying on a list of platforms.