Nandi Vijayakumar, Deakin University; Susan M. Sawyer, The University of Melbourne, and Sylvia C. Lin, Deakin University; Murdoch Children's Research Institute

As the United Kingdom and other countries make moves to follow Australia’s lead in restricting access to social media for under 16s, there is still much we don’t know about how the technology impacts young people’s mental health over time.

For example, does using social media for a certain amount of hours each day lead to increased harm? Are younger adolescents more vulnerable than older ones? Is there any difference between boys and girls?

Our new study, published today in the Medical Journal of Australia, provides some important answers to these questions. It found clear risks from heavier social media use on young people’s mental health.

Alongside this, we also undertook a recent poll of Australian parents about efforts to restrict access to social media for young people. The findings suggests the law is changing parents’ views and practices around their children’s social media use.

A debate over age

When Australia restricted access to social media for young people under 16 last December, there was considerable debate about whether 16 was the appropriate age threshold.

There were a number of longitudinal studies that examined associations between adolescent social media use and mental health. But very few had systematically investigated whether risks of social media use differed across age during adolescence.

One large 2022 study from the UK found that increases in adolescents’ social media use over time were associated with lower life satisfaction during specific age periods – 11 to 13 years of age for girls and 14 to 15 years of age for boys. It focused on life satisfaction and did not assess symptoms of mental health.

---

---

Digging deeper

Our new study aimed to dig deeper into these trends.

We used data from 1,195 students in Melbourne whom researchers have followed annually from 12 to 18 years of age.

We examined whether their social media use was related to later mental health problems, and statistically accounted for a range of individual and family factors that are known to influence both social media use and mental health. Therefore, we were able to reduce alternative explanations and strengthen confidence in our findings – even though we couldn’t prove causation.

We found that adolescents who spent more than two hours per day on social media had a higher risk of developing mental health problems one year later, compared with those using social media for less than one hour per day. The mental health problems included elevated symptoms of depression and poor wellbeing.

Importantly, the risks of social media use were not evenly experienced across adolescence.

The strongest effects consistently emerged in adolescents aged 12 to 13 for both girls and boys. The estimated risk for symptoms of depression and anxiety, as well as poor wellbeing and self-harm, was roughly twice as large compared with adolescents aged 14 to 16 and those aged 17 to 18.

Overall, the estimated size of effects was modest. But in girls aged 12 to 13, more than two hours of daily social media use was associated with around 11 additional cases of high depressive symptoms per 100 adolescents.

Even small effects can become meaningful at a population level when large numbers of young people are spending more than two hours a day on social media.

Age-based restrictions alone aren’t enough

Our study cannot determine a precise age at which social media becomes “safe”. Nor should a single study inform national legislation on age-based restrictions.

However, combined with other research, our study suggests that younger adolescents are particularly vulnerable to the potential harms of social media, with the strongest effects emerging during early adolescence.

As a result, we expect that Australia’s social media law will have the greatest impact on the mental health of younger adolescents. But further research is needed to confirm this.

However, age-based restrictions alone are unlikely to eliminate all risks associated with adolescent social media use. We found evidence that some risks for mental health problems – namely elevated symptoms of depression – persisted for young people up to 18 years of age.

This highlights the need for continued supports for older adolescents.

This includes holding social media platforms accountable for algorithms and features that promote compulsive engagement and exposure to harmful content. One way to achieve this is through Australia’s proposed digital duty of care reform.

It also involves improving education on digital literacy and safety at schools and supporting parents to help young people develop healthier online habits.

Changing the norm

We also recently undertook a poll of more than 2,000 parents of 0- to 17-year-olds about the law restricting access to social media in Australia.

The survey found that 59% of parents felt the law supported them to set rules around social media use. Also, 39% of parents reported that the law has changed their view on when children should first have their social media accounts, with 16 years being the most commonly endorsed age (38%).

These findings, which are yet to be published, demonstrate that public health policies can influence what is considered appropriate or expected behaviour.

While evidence on the impacts of Australia’s social media law is still emerging, it has already influenced global discussions on adolescent social media use.

Debates about age-based social media restrictions are now occurring in many countries. And the conversation is increasingly shifting from whether social media affects young people’s mental health to when young people may be most vulnerable and how we as a society should respond.

Nandi Vijayakumar, Research Fellow, School of Psychology, Deakin University; Susan M. Sawyer, Professor of Adolescent Health The University of Melbourne; Director, Royal Children's Hospital Centre for Adolescent Health; and Murdoch Children's Research Institute, The University of Melbourne, and Sylvia C. Lin, Postdoctoral research fellow, Deakin University; Murdoch Children's Research Institute

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Senuri Wijenayake, RMIT University; Anastasia Powell, RMIT University; Dana McKay, RMIT University, and Madhuka Thisuri De Silva, RMIT University

Australia is world-leading in taking active measures to keep people safe online – home to the world’s first dedicated online safety regulator, the eSafety Commissioner, and the first country to introduce enforceable industry codes requiring platforms to tackle harmful content at scale.

And now, a newly released federal government issues paper proposes a “digital duty of care”, which would require social media platforms to take reasonable steps to prevent foreseeable online harm.

The proposal signals Australia’s position that it is platforms, not just individuals, who should be responsible for actively preventing online harms.

At the heart of the proposed digital duty of care is the principle that social media platforms should be “safe by design”.

But what does that mean in practice – especially for those who are most at risk? Our research with women and gender-diverse Australians offers six concrete recommendations for what safety by design could look like in practice.

Who bears the brunt of online abuse?

One in two Australian adults have experienced online abuse in their lifetime. Women and gender-diverse people are disproportionately targeted, experiencing harassment, non-consensual image sharing, impersonation, stalking and identity-based abuse at far higher rates than others.

Yet these groups are rarely involved in envisioning what safer platforms could look like. So, we asked them: what would safer social media look like to you?

We worked with 75 Australian women and gender-diverse social media users, and 21 experts in platform safety, digital policy and content moderation, to understand how existing safety features are falling short.

Here’s what they told us – and how it compares with the current Australian proposal for a digital duty of care.

1. Make abuse reports actually work. Abuse rarely fits a single category – without context, platforms don’t handle the reports well. A message that reads as innocuous to a stranger may be a clear threat to someone who knows their abuser. But without that context, platforms have no way of knowing.

Users want clearer processes that capture the full picture, smarter triage that prioritises urgent cases, and timely updates on what happened to their report. This fits well with what the digital duty of care proposes: platforms should have accessible complaint mechanisms and respond within 24 hours for serious issues.

2. Harmful content should be harder to share in the first place. Once someone shares intimate or sensitive content without your consent, it quickly spirals out of control. Australia’s proposal suggests platforms should prevent the upload of seriously harmful content such as image-based abuse, or detect and remove it.

Users in our research said they want prompts that encourage people to pause before sharing, technical measures that prevent screenshots or downloads, and real-time alerts showing when and where their content is being accessed.

3. Make bans harder to evade. If you block a user, they can create new accounts in minutes, facing few real barriers. The digital duty of care flags that anonymous account systems may need redesigning to prevent foreseeable harm.

As we found, users want layered verification – such as requiring a unique phone number or introducing delays before new accounts become active – that adds friction to repeat account creation, but not mandatory ID checks for everyone. This would protect those without formal ID, those escaping unsafe homes, or those who rely on anonymity to stay safe.

4. Harmful content should be caught before it spreads. Automated systems routinely miss culturally specific abuse and coded language. Content should be detectable before it is shared, and easy for bystanders – not just victims – to flag.

The users in our research recommended pairing automated detection with human moderators trained in cultural nuances, which is precisely the kind of effective content moderation system the proposed duty of care requires.

5. Recognise campaigns, not just individual posts. Abuse is often a sustained campaign, even when each message seems minor alone. The duty of care proposal requires platforms to mitigate reasonably foreseeable harms – which means looking beyond individual incidents.

Platforms should connect reports over time, identify patterns, and act before harm escalates, with independent audits to ensure these systems are never weaponised against the people they are meant to protect.

6. Surface safety tools before harm happens. Most users discover safety features only after something has gone wrong. Australia’s proposal envisions “empowering” users – but empowerment means more than adding features. It means the platform should offer the right tool at the right moment, rather than bury it in a settings menu that only the most determined users will ever find.

The real test

The proposed digital duty of care is a significant step in the right direction. But “safe by design” will only deliver if it works for everyone. As our research shows, those most affected already have clear, practical ideas about what would make platforms safer.

The opportunity now is to design with them – so safety is built in from the start.

Until the proposed digital duty of care is rolled out, it is up to all of us to look after each other. We can report harmful content, pause before we post and ask: is it true? Is it kind? Is it fair? And we can be active bystanders – commenting when we see something harmful, or offering support to those experiencing abuse.

We all have a role to play. From governments, to platforms, to everyday people – it is up to all of us to create a safe digital society, one that we can all be a part of.

Senuri Wijenayake, Senior Lecturer in Human-Computer Interaction, RMIT University; Anastasia Powell, Professor of Family and Sexual Violence, RMIT University; Dana McKay, Associate Dean, Interaction, Technology and Information, RMIT University, and Madhuka Thisuri De Silva, Research Assistant, Inclusive Digital Technologies, RMIT University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.