Bold claim: social media isn’t just a pastime for teens—it shapes how they learn, connect, and even define themselves. And the debate about banning it for under-16s isn’t black-and-white. Here’s a fresh, fully revised take that preserves every key detail from the original while adding clarity, context, and accessible explanations.
A recent study surveying over 1,000 Kiwi teenagers and their caregivers found that a striking 90% of teens use social media, with 62% starting between ages 10 and 13. This isn’t just “surfing on a whim” for many: for a sizable portion, it’s woven into daily life and social development.
Not all researchers see social media in the same light. About 22% of the teens in the study met the criteria for problematic use, exhibiting behaviours that resemble addiction. This highlights a real concern: for some youths, the platform becomes hard to put down, interfering with sleep, school, or real-life interactions.
Shubhanyu, 14, has been on social media since he was 12. He describes it as incredibly easy to access—open one app and the scrolling begins. He wishes he had more self-control, noting that it’s a frequent default during downtime or boredom. Yet he isn’t convinced that social media is inherently bad. He pushes back against the notion that it’s all negative, pointing out meaningful positives.
He emphasizes what he sees as a major upside: social media lowers barriers to entry for creative expression. It gives young people a platform to share art, literature, and music that might otherwise require money or access to participate. He’s drawn to seeing peers post passionate work—paintings, poetry, and other creative endeavors—that would be harder to showcase offline.
However, Shubhanyu also calls out a darker side: misinformation and hyperinflated expectations propagated by “grifters, influencers, and self-help gurus.” He cites examples of influencers telling teenagers they must earn vast sums daily to feel successful, a message that normalizes toxic standards and distorts reality.
Despite these concerns, he doesn’t advocate for a blanket ban. He’s unsure whether a broad prohibition would work as hoped and worries it might cause teens to lose access to the good parts of social media while failing to curb the downsides.
Rae, 14, started using social media at 12 and sees it as less a choice than an expectation. It’s described as a key way people her age stay connected and communicate with one another, and it has personally helped her engage with others in her Rainbow community. Social media has provided a space where marginalized individuals can find solidarity and support.
The online landscape, Rae notes, is a mixed bag. Some content is genuinely positive or inspiring, but there’s plenty that isn’t suitable or healthy. She stresses the importance of learning to cope with negative material through supportive safeguards. Parents and schools have a crucial role in fostering safety and resilience online.
Rae also argues against a ban: banning social media for under-16s would push youths to seek it out covertly, eroding transparency and safety rather than improving them. Instead, she advocates for guided, supervised access with better protections.
Molly, 11, uses Kids Messenger, YouTube, and Roblox on a tablet. She enjoys playing Roblox with cousins and staying connected with friends via messenger, but she’d still prefer meeting in person. She recognizes that while many young people enjoy social media, it can feel addictive. Reels and endless scrolling often seem unstoppable, pulling her in for long stretches.
Education can benefit from social media, Molly acknowledges, but there are drawbacks. Some content is inappropriate for younger audiences, and she believes safety concerns require careful handling. She supports a ban as a means to increase safety and encourage outdoor activities, suggesting it could redirect attention to more meaningful pursuits.
The central question remains: is social media addictive, toxic, or essential for today’s teens? The study’s findings show that for most Kiwi youths, it’s a significant part of life, yet not without real risks. The ongoing debate about regulation—and the potential consequences of bans—reflects broader tensions between connectivity, creativity, and well-being.
So, where do you stand? Do you think restricting access would protect teens or hamper their social and creative development? What safeguards would you prioritize to balance opportunity with safety? Share your thoughts below.
