Reacción a "Most young Australians intended to continue using social media, even if the ban came into force"

This study is interesting in that it seeks to present an analysis from a longitudinal perspective and to examine, empirically, the fundamental assumptions underpinning Australia’s Social Media Minimum Age Restriction (SMMAR). However, it is important to note that its methodological limitations (particularly the relatively small sample size, the homogeneous socio-demographic composition limited to urban and affluent participants, and the self-reported nature of the data) restrict its generalisability. Self-reporting is valuable as it provides insight into adolescents’ intentions, but it inevitably introduces inherent biases stemming from social desirability that may not accurately reflect actual behaviour. These limitations do not invalidate the study, but they do suggest that its findings should be interpreted as preliminary indicators rather than conclusive evidence. The study uses the generic term ‘social media’, without distinguishing between TikTok, Instagram, Snapchat, YouTube, Discord, etc. Each platform has very different dynamics, risks and social functions, so a more detailed analysis would be of interest.

What is interesting about this study is the analysis of the effectiveness of age-restriction policies and the stated intentions of adolescents, as it helps us understand how they experience these restriction policies. It appears that 75 per cent of teenagers planned to continue using social media by finding ways to circumvent the restrictions. This study joins others that are beginning to be published which suggest something interesting: that simply raising the minimum age for accessing social media is not enough to resolve teenagers’ wellbeing issues. In other words, it seems that legal restrictions alone are not sufficient and that additional strategies are needed for them to be effective. It is also interesting that the motivation to continue using social media is not primarily driven by mental health issues, but by other reasons (social connection, identity, entertainment).

Another important point acknowledged in the study itself is that it only included urban and affluent participants, thus excluding the perspectives of adolescents in rural or isolated areas. In these areas, social media could be important tools for connecting with others, accessing information or various educational opportunities. For vulnerable and geographically dispersed populations, restricting access to social media may have different social consequences. Therefore, whilst this study is interesting and contributes to the debate on digital policies, it cannot be applied across the board.

Finally, it is worth noting that longitudinal studies bring us closer to understanding causal relationships than simple cross-sectional studies, so it will be interesting to follow the results of the authors’ research closely.