THE SOCIAL MEDIA BAN AND THE UNCOMFORTABLE SPACE OF NOT KNOWING #VPCBLOG75

There has been a lot said in the headlines about the Australian social media ban. Some see it as a necessary step towards protecting children. Others question whether it will work at all. 

Perhaps we need to sit back and have a little think about that. 

The social media ban is one initiative, not the whole solution to a complex and widespread problem. The challenge may be less about the ban itself and more about how we respond when the answers are not yet clear. 

Six months after its introduction, many people seem eager for a verdict. Is it working or not working? Was it a good idea or a bad one? We are measuring a generation-long problem against a six-month intervention and asking for definitive answers.  

This may say as much about us as it does about our children. Uncertainty is an uncomfortable feeling that creates a gap. This gap creates a tension that demands immediate release. However, meaningful cultural change rarely works that way. 

What happens in a face-to-face conversation? 

Part of the challenge may be that screens are quietly shaping not only what we think, but how we think. 

Face-to-face interaction is an extraordinarily complex neurological task. Every conversation requires us to process facial expressions, tone of voice, body language, pauses and countless other social cues. Our brains constantly gather information, compare it with previous experience, and update our interpretation in real time. The more varied our interactions, the more opportunities we have to practise navigating differences, interpreting social cues and recognising what is and isn’t a threat.^4,5 

Screens offer a very different experience. Much of that complexity disappears. We are left with headlines, comments, short videos, and carefully curated snapshots of other people’s lives. When fewer social cues are available, we have less information to work with, and it becomes easier to make assumptions, jump to conclusions, or see complex issues through a narrower lens. Questions that deserve careful thought can begin to feel as though they should have simple answers.⁶ 

Change rarely happens overnight 

In 1970, 3,798 Australians died on our roads. Victoria became the first place in the world to make seatbelts compulsory.³ 

I distinctly remember sitting in the back seat of the family orange Ford Falcon without a seatbelt, well after 1970. My siblings did too. For a period, the youngest, a baby at the time, travelled in one of those large roomy cane bassinets that sat unsecured across the back seat. 

We were told to put our seatbelts on, but we complained. Sometimes we complied and wrestled ourselves into those ill-fitting, non-retractable seatbelts. Often, we didn’t. My parents weren’t bad parents. They were tired and doing the best they could with the circumstances they had. 

The road toll came down, but not overnight, and not because every Australian suddenly embraced seatbelts the moment the law changed. The law became an anchor point. With it came public education campaigns, random breath testing, speed cameras, safer roads and safer cars. Policies were refined and adjusted over decades, and by 2019, Australia’s road toll had fallen dramatically.³ 

Nobody called the seatbelt law a failure in 1971 because children were still rolling around in the back seat. The culture changed slowly. 

What fills the gap? 

One of the challenges with changing behaviour is understanding what that behaviour is doing for us in the first place. 

Habits form because the brain likes efficient solutions to feelings of discomfort. When something makes us feel bored, uncertain, lonely, awkward, or stressed, we naturally gravitate towards actions that relieve those feelings. When we find a behaviour that reduces discomfort, the brain is more likely to repeat it until, over time, it becomes an automatic response. 

One of the challenges with social media is that it is not simply a screen. It is a highly engaging environment designed to capture our attention. Behind the scenes, algorithms learn what interests us, what keeps us watching, and what we are likely to respond to, then continually adjust what we see. Social media can offer immediate relief from uncomfortable feelings such as boredom, uncertainty, loneliness, or stress.  At the same time, it has become deeply embedded in children’s social lives, where connection with friends is increasingly tied to participation on digital platforms.  

When something occupies such a large part of daily life, removing it leaves a gap. The size of the gap it leaves depends on each individual’s use of social media. How large that gap feels will depend on each young person’s prior use of social media: for some, it may surface as disconnection or vulnerability. What this requires is some thought, about some supportive options to have on hand to help ease that gap rather than leave it unattended.

There are concerns. 

These concerns are not emerging from nowhere. For years, educators, psychologists, parents and other professionals have raised questions about the role digital technologies play in children’s attention, capacity to learn, emotional wellbeing, relationships and development. The concerns are varied but often centre on the increasing role digital devices play in children’s everyday lives. 

In my own work, these questions often appear in different forms. A parent may describe a child who becomes distressed when asked to put a device away, or who struggles to tolerate periods of boredom without access to a screen. Sometimes repeated requests to stop using a device escalate into significant emotional outbursts. Of course, these observations do not tell us that social media is the cause of the behaviour. They do suggest, however, that it may be part of a much larger and more complex picture. 

Research has identified associations between heavy social media use and increased anxiety, depression, disrupted sleep, poorer body image, and reduced wellbeing in some young people.^1,2 At the same time, many young people use online spaces for creativity, connection, learning and belonging.^1,2 Both things can be true at the same time. 

The research itself also highlights the complexity of the issue. Some large studies have identified associations between digital technology use and wellbeing outcomes, while others suggest the effects are smaller or vary significantly between individuals.⁶ This leaves us with another gap: the space between what we know, what we do not yet know, and our desire for quick answers. This may be where a more considered and broader way of thinking is needed. 

Starting somewhere 

Start small and start somewhere. What works in your home will depend on your children’s age, personality, existing screen habits and the general stress levels in your household. There is no single right answer. 

 If you are fortunate enough to have children who do not yet have social media accounts, the ban gives you a solid card to play. You no longer have to be the only person saying no. If your children are already deeply embedded in social media, start with a conversation or two, or three, before stating the rules. Find a point of agreement over making a demand, and most importantly, pay attention to your own habits. Children learn what they see, not just what they hear. 

A post circulating on social media recently (the irony is not lost on me) described a Swedish teacher who ran an experiment. He showed his students a series of documentaries about social media and screens and observed their responses. Within a week, kids were putting their phones down on their own. This is hardly a rigorous study, and we don’t know whether any long-term behaviour change occurred. It is, however, another small step towards changing how children engage with screens. 

Here are the five recommended documentaries which are worth watching, with your children or independently: 

• The Social Dilemma (Netflix, 2020): For teens and parents together. Former tech insiders explain how social media platforms are designed for dependence, not connection. Best for starting a conversation about why the scroll feels so hard to stop. 
• Childhood 2.0 (2020): For parents first, then with teenagers. Honest interviews with adolescents about anxiety, cyberbullying and social pressure online. Particularly useful for parents of girls. 
• Screened Out (2020): For families with younger children as well as teens. Examines the addictive design of screens and what it does to attention and behaviour. 
• Screenagers (2016): For families navigating screen time rules. Made by a physician and follows real families. Practical and non-alarmist. 
• The Great Hack (2019): Best for older teens and adults. Focuses on data, privacy and political influence. Raises important questions about who benefits from our attention online. 

Watch one together. Talk about it afterwards. That conversation, genuinely hearing your child’s perspective alongside your own, holds more power than you might imagine. 

Final thought 

The social media ban is a starting point, not the whole solution. It will require behaviour change from all of us, which, as we know, takes time. The full effects may only become visible when we compare generations who grew up under different digital conditions. That leaves uncomfortable gaps everywhere. Every person’s gap will be a slightly different size and shape, so no single solution will fit them all. What’s needed instead is a range of ongoing, varied responses, held together by curiosity, careful observation, and a willingness to adjust as we learn more.

The law is the anchor point. What else we build around it is up to us. 

Reference List 

1. Office of the Surgeon General (OSG). Social Media and Youth Mental Health: The U.S. Surgeon General’s Advisory [Internet]. Washington (DC): US Department of Health and Human Services; 2023 [cited 2026 Jun 17].  https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK594761/  

2. eSafety Commissioner. Young people and social media: current evidence [Internet]. Canberra: Australian Government eSafety Commissioner; 2024 [cited 2026 Jun 17].  https://www.esafety.gov.au  

3. Transport Accident Commission. Road safety history and the road toll [Internet]. Melbourne: TAC; 2019 [cited 2026 Jun 17]. https://www.tac.vic.gov.au  

4. Zupan B, Eskritt M. Facial and vocal emotion recognition in adolescence: a systematic review. Adolesc Res Rev. 2024;9(2):253-277. doi:10.1007/s40894-023-00219-7. Link 

5. Doheny MM, Lighthall NR. Social cognitive neuroscience in the digital age. Front Hum Neurosci. 2023;17:1168788. doi:10.3389/fnhum.2023.1168788. Link 

6. Orben A, Przybylski AK. The association between adolescent well-being and digital technology use. Nat Hum Behav. 2019;3(2):173-82. doi:10.1038/s41562-018-0506-1Link 

Katrina Gow is a counsellor and psychotherapist in private practice in Melbourne, working with parents, caregivers, and adults navigating complex life situations. Her practice, The Slow Work, draws on nervous system science, embodied awareness, and thirty years of Iyengar yoga practice to support people through stress, burnout, and the particular demands of raising children in demanding times. She serves as an advisor on the Deakin University School Attendance Project and writes regularly for the Victorian Parents Council on parent wellbeing, capacity, and family stress. www.theslowwork.com.au