The debate over a social media ban: facts rather than gut feelings

At re:publica 2026 on 18 May 2026, Josephine B. Schmitt (CAIS), Roland A. Stürz (bidt) and Hannes-Vincent Krause (WI) will discuss the latest empirical findings on the consequences of social media bans, whilst also speaking directly with young people about their experiences and perspectives.

The introduction of the ban in Australia was justified primarily on the grounds of risks to young people’s mental health. However, the perspectives of young people in particular were hardly taken into account prior to the decision.

“Flat bans on social media often replace the debate about effective platform regulation,” says Josephine B. Schmitt, Academic Coordinator at CAIS. “They create the impression of political capacity to act, but shift responsibility onto young people instead of consistently regulating platforms.” Social media, she says, are not only risky spaces for young people, but also places for information, exchange, self-organisation and social participation.

Bans do not solve many problems; they merely shift them into less visible spaces.

Dr. Josephine B. Schmitt, Academic Coordinator at the Center for Advanced Internet Studies (CAIS)

The call for effective regulation rather than blanket bans is emphasised by Hannes-Vincent Krause, a psychologist and business IT specialist conducting research at the Weizenbaum Institute:

From a scientific perspective, a social media ban is hard to justify – neither in terms of necessity nor effectiveness. In a fear-driven debate we should avoid falling into blind activism. Instead of banning individual platforms outright, we should push providers to implement clear regulations addressing issues such as harmful content, and finally invest seriously in developing media literacy in a meaningful way.

Dr. Hannes-Vincent Krause, psychologist and business IT specialist at the Weizenbaum Institute

A recent discussion paper by Weizenbaum researchers Charlotte Mysegades, Christoph Neuberger and Jakob Ohme likewise suggests that there is only limited empirical evidence to support a general social media ban for minors. Existing studies have so far failed to demonstrate strong negative effects of social media use. Instead, the observed associations tend to be small, context-dependent, and often unclear in terms of causality. Rather than advocating blanket bans, the researchers call for stronger regulation of problematic content, the promotion of digital literacy, and the development of age-appropriate online services (see Discussion Paper)..

Majority in favour of bans, doubts about their effectiveness

Current data from the bidt show that there is nevertheless a strong desire among the public for clear rules – yet at the same time, there is widespread scepticism regarding the effectiveness of such blanket bans. A representative Germany-wide survey has reached the following conclusions (see Policy Brief):

1. 66 per cent of respondents are in favour of introducing a ban on social media for children under the age of 14. However, support drops significantly as the age limit rises.
2. When it comes to under-18s, more people are against a ban on social media (23%) than in favour of it (11%).
3. Personal positive or negative experiences with social media, on the other hand, have only a minor influence on attitudes towards a ban, as do key socio-demographic characteristics.
4. Differences emerge depending on party preference, yet a majority in all groups supports a ban for children under 14.
5. At the same time, there is widespread scepticism regarding the effectiveness of such a ban: a majority of 59% of people in Germany consider it rather or very unlikely that a legal ban could actually prevent children and young people from using social media.

As latest survey data from the bidt shows, a broad majority of the population supports a ban on social media for children under the age of 14—despite widespread skepticism regarding its effectiveness. In my view, this stems from people’s legitimate need for clarity regarding the regulation of social media, as the current regulatory framework appears very complex and is therefore difficult to implement

Dr. Roland A. Stürz To the profile

During the panel discussion, the researchers will provide an evidence-based assessment of the debate on social media bans and discuss potential solutions for effective youth protection. The panel “Das verbiete ich dir!!1!1! – Australiens Social-Media-Verbot für unter 16-Jährige: erste Fakten statt Bauchgefühl” will take place on 18 May 2026 at re:publica – including a discussion with young people.

Resources

About the participating institutes

Since 2021, the Network of Institutes for Digitalisation Research (NIfD) has brought together leading institutions in Germany that conduct interdisciplinary research into the social, political and technological consequences of the digital transformation. These include, among others, the Bavarian Research Institute for Digital Transformation (bidt), the Center for Advanced Internet Studies (CAIS) and the Weizenbaum Institute.

Press contacts

Policy Advisor

---