The Guardian’s headline refers to me as a “social media ban skeptic.” Fair enough, I guess. But that made me reflect on how I got here, because this is not where I started.

In fact, when I first began studying how digital technologies shape adolescent development nearly two decades ago, I probably would have supported age-based restrictions.

What I used to believe

When I entered this field in 2008, I knew a lot about child and adolescent mental health. I knew much less about the technology industry, internet governance, privacy law, or the regulatory systems that shape our online lives.

Back then, the solution seemed obvious.

If technology companies can build algorithms capable of predicting what we will buy, who we know, and what we might click next, surely they can direct this energy and technological expertise to accurately determine a user’s age and ensure that children are only exposed to age-appropriate content.

But as I began spending more time listening to experts in online privacy, internet governance, child safety, civil liberties, and digital rights, the less obvious this solution became and the more worried I was that these kinds of restrictions might make things worse.

Why I changed my mind

Eventually, I came to believe that mandatory age verification and blanket social media bans are likely to create a new set of problems, while failing to address the issues they are trying to solve.

Hear me out.

• Age verification forces all of us to hand over our sensitive data to companies who have repeatedly shown that they are unwilling or unable to protect it. Experts like Mike Masnik have warned for years that age-gating will not solve the problems we think it will, and ultimately would make things worse for all of us.

  Building systems capable of verifying everyone’s age inevitably creates new databases, new surveillance capabilities, and new opportunities for privacy breaches. Those systems don’t only affect children; they impact every internet user.

• Young people are telling us that they can and will likely get around the bans. The latest evidence in Australia shows they are probably right, with over 80% of teens still on social media platforms despite nationwide bans. Maybe this shouldn’t surprise us. History is full of examples showing that teenagers are particularly motivated to work around rules that feel arbitrary or unfair. Even if we did want to keep young people off of these platforms, top-down, authoritative bans wouldn’t be the most effective way to change their behavior.

• I worry that bans may even make things worse by pushing teens into less regulated and less safe spaces online. The more we make these spaces forbidden, the less likely they are to tell us what’s happening in those spaces, the less likely they will be to report harms, and the less likely we will be to help them.

• Social media bans are incredibly popular among adults and, with bipartisan support, are an easy political win at a time when politicians need wins. The risk is that policies that are light on details and heavy on rhetoric will be proposed and quickly passed, scoring a “victory” for adults without actually helping young people. There is a significant opportunity cost to declaring victory without making meaningful progress on the problem.

I understand the urgency of the arguments and the need to protect children from online harms. But even as social media bans move forward largely unchallenged, it is becoming less clear that they can deliver on their promises or provide the remedy that advocates envision.

Tough questions and conversations lead to better solutions

Since the release of my TED talk I have been asked to defend my position on social media bans and related impacts on adolescent mental health in lengthy interviews with three brilliant female journalists: Amelia Gentleman, Taylor Lorenz and Manoush Zomoradi, each of whom were unwilling to accept a simple answer to the complex problems facing us and our children. They asked tough questions because these are incredibly tough issues that will not be solved with a singular or simple solution.

In each conversation, I have continued to learn what a broadly relevant issue social media age bans and restrictions are and how the cooperation of many diverse stakeholders is going to be required to get this right. Pushback on my position, from smart people like tech journalist Casey Newton, have also provided me with opportunities to pause, check my assumptions against data, and carefully consider criticism from those with a different vantage point than the one I hold.

I am grateful for the continued conversation and more convinced than ever that instead of “camps” debating these issues, we need a broad and big-tent conversation about the best way forward. That kind of honest and open conversation is the only way we will arrive at solutions that will actually work to protect our children from online harms while preparing them to thrive in an increasingly digital world.

Let’s keep talking, and listening, to each other so that we can finally get this right.

-Candice

I wasn’t sure what to expect.

For more than two decades, I’ve studied adolescents, their families, and the role that digital technology plays in their daily lives. Much of that work has happened quietly—in schools, in research labs, online, and alongside thousands of young people who have generously shared their experiences with us. Like most scientists, I’m more comfortable analyzing data than speaking to a global audience. Needless to say, giving a talk on the TED stage to an audience of hundreds (and a virtual audience climbing into the hundreds of thousands) put me a little outside my comfort zone.

So first, thank you.

Listen to the TED Talk: What we’re getting wrong about kids and tech

Thank you to everyone who has watched the talk, shared it with friends and colleagues, sent thoughtful messages, or challenged me with good questions. A special thank you to the young people who have reached out to share their stories and who participated in our studies!

I have been overwhelmed by the generosity of the response and grateful to see so many people who are eager for a more evidence-based conversation about young people and technology.

The central message of the talk is simple.

The story we are often told about teenagers mental health today does not match what the best available evidence—or teenagers themselves—are telling us.

They are doing better than expected on many metrics that matter, with the lowest rates of alcohol use, violence, and teen pregnancy, and highest rates of high school graduation we have seen in decades. They are growing up in a world that is more complex than the one many of us inherited, yet they continue to adapt, support one another, and work towards better futures.

That doesn’t mean today’s young people aren’t facing real challenges. They are. Many report increasing sadness, anxiety, and uncertainty about the future. They worry about violence in their school, climate change, discrimination, and whether they’ll be able to build the lives they hope for. These concerns deserve our full attention.

But we should be careful not to confuse a compelling story with a scientifically supported one.

This is not a lost generation. It is a resilient one.

For years, we’ve been told that smartphones and social media are the primary explanation for a growing mental health crisis among young people. Yet decades of research, including work from my own lab and many others, consistently tells a more nuanced story. For most adolescents, digital technology explains remarkably little of the variation in mental health compared with factors such as family relationships, economic hardship, conflict at home, sleep, school pressures, and the mental health of the adults who care for them.

As parents and policymakers alike consider restricting teens’ access to smartphones and social media, that distinction matters.

When we misdiagnose the problem, we risk investing enormous energy in solutions that may do little to help, an could even make the problem worse, while overlooking opportunities that could make a meaningful difference.

If we want young people to thrive, the evidence points us toward investing in them and the spaces where they spend their time versus simply banning them from tech. That means:

• Supporting parents, teachers, counselors, and other adults who care for young people. Too many adults today are struggling with mental health problems of their own.

• Creating safe, welcoming places, both online and offline, where teenagers can belong, connect, and seek help.

• Holding technology companies accountable for designing safer digital environments instead of placing the entire burden on families and schools.

• And, listening to young people in policy discussions that impact them.

Perhaps the message that has resonated most with people is the one I chose to end the talk with:

If we only see teens’ phones when we look at them, we will miss seeing what they really need from us.

Young people deserve more than fear-driven headlines.

They deserve adults who are willing to look carefully at the evidence, remain curious when the answers are complicated, and invest in what actually helps.

Inspired by the conversations sparked over the past week, I want to continue sharing insights (mine and others’) about tech, social media, parenting, and adolescent mental health. In doing so, I hope we can pull back the curtain on what it’s actually like to grow up in an increasingly digital age and how we can support them to thrive in it.

If you’ve joined me here after watching the TED Talk, welcome. I’m glad you’re here, and I hope you’ll be part of this conversation.

With gratitude,

Candice