If social platforms are harmful, don't just ban kids. Regulate the harms
#social media regulation #youth mental health #digital safety #algorithmic accountability #social media bans #online harm prevention #platform design #digital mental health
📌 Key Takeaways
- Bans on youth social media access represent policy abdication rather than solution
- Social media design features, not mere access, drive potential harms
- Online spaces serve as vital support systems for many vulnerable adolescents
- Regulation should focus on algorithmic accountability and enforcement mechanisms
- Digital mental health supports should be integrated into existing platforms
📖 Full Retelling
Psychologist Jessica L. Schleider argued in a February 25, 2026 article that as social media companies face litigation over alleged harms to young people's mental health, policymakers should focus on regulating platform design rather than implementing bans on youth access, emphasizing that such measures represent a form of policy abdication that fails to address the structural drivers of online harm. The lawsuits against major social media platforms are bringing critical questions into public discourse about who bears responsibility for online harm and what concrete actions should be taken, particularly as these cases examine whether companies knowingly designed addictive, psychologically harmful systems for young users. Rather than adopting blunt-force bans that prohibit or restrict adolescent access to social media, Schleider advocates for systemic oversight that targets the actual design features causing harm, including algorithmic recommender systems, infinite scroll designs, and engagement-maximizing feedback loops that prioritize profit over user wellbeing. The article highlights research showing that while social media isn't inherently the primary driver of youth mental health crises, the specific content delivery mechanisms and platform structures significantly impact young users, with many vulnerable adolescents relying on these spaces as crucial support lifelines that would be severed by blanket restrictions without adequate replacements.
🏷️ Themes
Social Media Regulation, Youth Mental Health, Digital Safety, Policy Development
Entity Intersection Graph
No entity connections available yet for this article.
Original Source
By Jessica L. Schleider Guest contributor Feb. 25, 2026 3:01 AM PT 7 min Click here to listen to this article Share via Close extra sharing options Email Facebook X LinkedIn Threads Reddit WhatsApp Copy Link URL Copied! Print 0:00 0:00 1x This is read by an automated voice. Please report any issues or inconsistencies here . p]:text-cms-story-body-color-text clearfix max-w-170 mt-7.5 mb-10 mx-auto" data-subscriber-content> As major social media companies head to court this year to defend themselves against claims that their products have harmed young people’s mental health, policymakers are searching for decisive responses. The lawsuits, which focus on whether platforms knowingly designed addictive, psychologically harmful systems for youth, are bringing long-avoided questions into public view: Who bears responsibility for online harm? And what, exactly, should be done about it? Across the globe, one policy response has already gained momentum . Facing tremendous public pressure, legislators are increasingly turning to bans: prohibiting or sharply restricting adolescents’ access to social media altogether. These proposals are politically attractive. They are simple, signal action and promise protection without requiring the nuanced, slow and logistically complex work of regulating trillion-dollar companies. But blunt-force bans are the wrong response to this moment. As an adolescent psychologist and researcher who studies scalable digital mental health interventions for youth , I believe bans without systemic oversight are worse than ineffective; they are a form of policy abdication. They kick the can down the road, shift responsibility away from technology companies and give up on the far harder task of making online spaces genuinely safer for the millions of young people who already use them every day and will likely continue to do so — with an attempted ban or without (given known challenges in ban enforcement). Advertisement The ongoing trials are not contesting ...
Read full article at source