Australia’s recent ban on social media for under-16s has reignited a long-standing debate. The U.S. Surgeon General has warned that social media presents a “profound risk of harm” to young people, and with good reason. These platforms’ algorithms are precision-engineered to capture developing minds, serving up an endless stream of potentially harmful content—from self-harm videos to sexually aggressive material—often within hours of joining. 

Yet the discussion has become a dichotomy. Some advocate for outright bans, eager to use government power decisively. Others feel that we need to accept social media as an unavoidable part of our children’s lives.  

Both approaches miss the mark. While raising minimum age requirements might seem appealing as a quick fix, it creates a dangerous illusion of safety based on a dependency on government intervention. 

The real solution isn’t another law or resigned acceptance—it’s recognising parents as the primary decision-makers in their children’s digital lives. We don’t need politicians in Wellington or digital oligarchs in Silicon Valley deciding what’s best for our kids. No government policy can match the effectiveness of an engaged parent, whether they say “no” to a smartphone request or use monitoring apps to help their child navigate the digital world. 

Indeed, experts and organisations like Netsafe have pointed out that bans are practically unenforceable—children can still access content through peers. Worse, such measures can alienate teens from open conversations with parents, pushing their online activities underground. What works is a balanced approach: Parents set clear boundaries, discuss digital etiquette, and model healthy social media habits themselves. 

Rather than reaching for bureaucratic band-aids, let’s give Mum and Dad back their power.

Yes, Mum and Dad. I did say, “Model healthy social media habits.” I’m looking at you. Put down your phone now and go find the kids.  

Okay, I’m (sort of) kidding. The current push for age restrictions could even be counterproductive. Such measures create a forbidden fruit effect and undermine parents’ ability to teach responsible technology use. Waiting for government intervention or settling for harm reduction isn’t the answer. What’s more effective—a government ban that tech-savvy teens can easily bypass with borrowed devices or a parent who understands the risks and chooses not to provide their child with a smartphone in the first place? 

This kind of empowerment requires three things: robust, user-friendly parental controls that actually work; education for parents about digital platforms and their effects on child development; and transparency from tech companies about their user data. 

Most importantly, let’s stop treating parents as helpless bystanders in the digital age. While they may not have grown up with TikTok or Instagram, they understand their children’s needs, personalities, and maturity levels far better than any legislator or tech executive can. We must recognise that parents, armed with knowledge, conviction, and a few tools like Qustodio, Net Nanny, or Norton Family, remain our most effective line of defence against digital threats. 

Rather than reaching for bureaucratic band-aids, let’s give Mum and Dad back their power.