AUSTRALIA’S recent decision to ban social media for children under 16 has intensified global debate about how young people should engage with digital platforms. The issue is rarely straightforward. Research shows meaningful gains from purposeful, educational use of social media, alongside serious strains linked to distraction, mental health and cyberbullying. Understanding this balance is essential before deciding whether a ban is the right approach, and for whom.

A shift towards accountability

Australia’s policy highlights a long-standing gap in digital governance. Age restrictions have been in place for years, but children often find ways to bypass them. The new law forces technology companies to verify age more rigorously, shifting responsibility away from children and families and onto the platforms themselves. But while delaying access may reduce harm for some children, it does not address the behaviours and patterns of use that actually shape outcomes online.

The strains

The research on social media and student outcomes reflects this nuance. A large body of evidence shows a small but consistent negative relationship between general social networking use and academic performance, largely driven by multitasking, distraction, and the displacement of sleep and study time. The risks are not trivial. Girls, in particular, face higher vulnerability to body-image pressures and harmful social comparison, something highlighted in UNICEF’s 2024 global education monitoring report.

Where the gains appear

But the picture is not one of harm alone. There are important gains. When young people use digital platforms purposefully, for communication, information-seeking, or reading, the academic benefits are real. Research shows a positive correlation between social media use and digital reading performance, driven by increased exposure to text, online navigation, and information processing. Students who hold positive attitudes about social media’s usefulness are more likely to engage in reading online, participate in collaborative problem-solving, and perform better on digital literacy assessments.

WHY JAMAICA SHOULD PAY ATTENTION

This evidence is especially relevant for Jamaica. At first glance, Jamaica’s Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) 2022 results suggest progress: 78 per cent of 15-year-olds have Internet access at home, and two-thirds have a device for schoolwork (see article on Digital Literacy in the
Sunday Observer, July 27, 2025). But this represents only level one of the digital divide: access. Level two examines how young people use technology, and this is where the imbalance becomes clear. Although access is high, students’ digital activity is heavily skewed toward recreation rather than learning. On weekends, more than half of Jamaican students spend over three hours online for leisure, while only a quarter use digital tools for academic purposes.

We cannot move backward on access; instead, we must move forward by shaping how students use the access they already have. This means creating structure, purpose, and guidance around digital use, both at home and in schools. It also means teaching digital literacy with the same seriousness as reading and mathematics, helping students understand how to use technology to learn, create, and collaborate. Level three, which concerns outcomes, improved digital skills, academic gains, and long-term opportunity, cannot be achieved without meaningful progress at level two. Until students are supported to engage purposefully with technology, the full benefits of digital access will remain unrealised.

Why a ban alone falls short

Understanding these three levels of the digital divide clarifies the limitations of a ban. Removing access may delay exposure to harm, but it does not build the digital competence children need to navigate the online world safely and productively. It does not teach them how to manage screen time, recognise misinformation, or engage constructively with digital content. A ban may reduce risks, but it also eliminates opportunities for learning, digital literacy, and positive social connections.

This is why global policy trends are shifting toward regulation, not prohibition. The European Union’s Digital Services Act, the UK’s Online Safety Act, and Denmark’s planned age restrictions all place responsibility on platforms to reduce risks, strengthen design safeguards, and respond quickly to harmful content. UNICEF Australia also argues that age restrictions alone “won’t fix the underlying problems young people face online”, calling instead for platforms that are safer by design.

Beyond access

Protecting children online involves more than removing a tool. It requires reshaping the digital spaces where children spend time through stronger platform accountability, better digital literacy education in schools, and clear guidance for families. The goal is not to cut children off from the digital world, but to prepare them to navigate it safely and productively.

Ultimately, the gains and strains of social media use depend on purpose, context and mindset. Some uses support learning; others undermine it. If we want a safer digital world for our children, the path forward lies not in blanket bans but in fostering the digital skills, confidence, and protections they need to engage well.

Jeneve Swaby is an emerging psychometrician and a doctoral candidate in Measurement, Evaluation, Statistics, and Assessment at Boston College. Send comments to psychometric.associates@gmail.com.

Jeneve Swaby.