Blanket bans on smartphones are not the answer

Irish Times

9 hours ago

Smartphones and social media are recurring features in the ongoing debates on declining mental health among young people. Earlier this month, the Irish Health Behaviour in School-aged Children (HBSC) study reported
nearly half of young people 'feel low' at least weekly
. Invariably, any discussion on young people's mental health moves quickly to smartphones and social media, and the conclusion that the digital lives of young people are linked to a decline in their happiness. But we may be too quick to jump to conclusions on this.
In truth, the evidence is limited. Links between the digital lives of children and adolescents and their mental wellbeing are often based on correlative data with few longitudinal or experimental studies. Studies don't always clearly separate how different types of smartphone or social media use affect young people, and they often don't distinguish between using a phone for learning versus mindlessly scrolling.
There are likely positive and negative aspects to online activities, but sweeping conclusions and reactionary policies ignore this important nuance.
A lot of the commentary around smartphone use in young people frames it as a post-pandemic problem, with increased screen time and online distractions seen as linked to lockdown-induced dependency. But this ignores digital educational policies established well before the pandemic, which encouraged the use of student-owned devices, particularly to support classroom learning.
READ MORE
Policy guidance laid important groundwork for the informal incorporation of smartphones into educational settings, particularly in schools where resources are tight and there isn't always access to 1:1 laptop or tablet schemes. Implementation often relied on devices students already owned – in most cases, this meant a smartphone. The increasing presence of smartphones in schools is less a byproduct of the pandemic and more a foreseeable consequence of earlier policy directions that were often reactive and technologically permissive.
Media coverage of smartphone use in recent years has focused on, and often celebrated, more restrictive responses. Sweden, for example, has moved towards banning smartphones in primary classrooms, aligning with broader efforts to refocus on traditional forms of learning.
Minister for Education Helen McEntee recently issued circulars requiring schools to implement a policy to restrict the use of, and access to, personal mobile phones by students for the duration of the school day at post primary level and a full ban at primary level.
In 2024, the Australian government passed a new law which introduces a mandatory minimum age of 16 for accounts on some social media platforms. Controversially, parents cannot give their consent to under-16s to use these platforms, marking a new departure in terms of parents' rights.
At a surface level, such actions offer clear, decisive action in the face of complex technological challenges, and resonate with public anxieties about youth wellbeing. But they're fraught with practical, human rights and ethical implications. Age verification systems can be circumvented and bans also risk pushing young users on to less-regulated platforms or creating generational disconnects in digital literacy.
Blanket bans on smartphones, social media access and other digital activities overlook both the complexity of the issues and the realities of young people's lives. Restrictive policies and a one-size-fits-all approach may inadvertently exacerbate inequalities.
Mobile devices and social media can serve as essential tools for safety, communication and family co-ordination, especially for older adolescents needing greater independence.
Digital tools such as the language-learning app Duolingo, interactive Stem app Brilliant and online chess have opened up access to educational and enrichment opportunities that were once limited to wealthier families. These tools can give children from lower-income households a chance to learn languages, engage in advanced problem-solving, and develop critical-thinking skills.
While regulatory efforts may form part of a broader digital policy toolkit, bans alone are a blunt instrument and probably ineffective. They do little to address the underlying needs that drive youth engagement with smartphones; the human desire for social connection, access to information and autonomy.
So what can we do? A more effective response must be holistic: combining regulation with education, digital literacy and the co-creation of safe digital spaces that support both protection and participation.
Collective action and voluntary agreements among parents of primary schoolchildren to delay children's access to smartphones can play an important role. The 'no smartphone' initiatives seen in parts of Ireland are a promising grassroots approach to addressing concerns around digital overexposure, cyberbullying and mental health. These agreements can help to reduce peer pressure and create a more uniform standard that benefits all children.
Ideally, they should begin during primary school when habits and digital behaviours are still forming. Early implementation not only delays premature exposure to potentially harmful online environments, but also lays the groundwork for more responsible and mindful smartphone use in adolescence, supported by ongoing digital literacy education and parental involvement.
Investment in education-based initiatives, such as the Webwise programme, can empower young people and their families to navigate the digital world safely. Safer Internet Day, which is held annually in more than 180 countries, presents a valuable opportunity to promote responsible online behaviour through schools and community engagement.
Acceptable use policies, widely used across educational contexts, also present significant potential as instruments for guiding responsible smartphone and social media engagement among young people and advancing digital wellbeing. Of course we need to implement stronger regulations for the technology sector, including setting quality standards for children's content, controlling data extraction and algorithms and enforcing stricter privacy laws.
But technology is part of contemporary life, and it is continuously evolving. Simply trying to ban it won't work. Policymakers must adopt a flexible approach that maximises its benefits while safeguarding young people from potential risks.
Selina McCoy is professor in Sociology at the Economic and Social Research Institute and Ann Marcus-Quinn is associate professor in Technical Communication at the University of Limerick