Editorial Analysis
Social Media: a Justifiable Moral Panic?
By William Collinson
June 22, 2026
6 min read
Image: GETTY
We fear what we do not understand. Consequently, there are innumerable examples of older generations fearing and challenging new pastimes or technologies of their younger counterparts. In the 1970s, the rise of punk music, exemplified by bands such as the Sex Pistols, to some, threatened societal values, and many individuals removed from the subculture feared it would exacerbate delinquency and social disorder. More recently, fears that violent video games and television would raise a generation of cold-blooded killers animated society in the 1990s; these fears have always been overblown, yet for such moral panics to take hold, there must be a kernel of truth. Social media is different, and society must recognise this.
Social media is increasingly scrutinised due to its overwhelming success at capturing humanity's attention. In the UK, there are 55.5 million social media user identities, and roughly 3 billion active Instagram users, according to research undertaken by Statista. Platforms provided by corporations such as Meta have incredible powers to facilitate greater social connection, making it easier to remain in contact over great distances with the click of a button. It can provide enthralling entertainment and has thus greatly transformed daily life.
Yet social media poses a greater – and far more real – danger than past moral panics. The harmful aspects of social media disproportionately affect children. This article will examine whether a social media ban for under-16s would be effective, and equally, whether questions around social media amount to a hysterical moral panic, or a seismic challenge facing modern society.
A Dark Side to Social Media
The relationship between social media and mental health is complex. Indeed, research has highlighted both potential harms and benefits for children, and research has struggled to categorically prove the link between rising youth suicide rates and increasing use of social media (NASEM). This, however, is simply not an adequate rebuttal. While social media may not impact all children equally, what matters the most is the effect on society's most vulnerable. The numerous cases of harmful content prompting vulnerable individuals into action are disturbing, and, due to their frequent severity, they trump claims that there is minimal evidence for this wider link. There are different categories of harm, specifically for children, resulting from social media: devastating harm and developmental harm.
Devastating Harm
Social media has led to devastating harm for a small number of children, altering lives and proving fatal for some. The devastating impacts of social media, in this sense, are only the experience of a smaller section of children, yet many more have been impacted well before reaching the possible extreme examples social media facilitates.
Adolescents suffering from pre-existing anxiety, depression, eating disorders, and self-harm are directed by social media algorithms to online communities that normalise, or even glorify, harmful behaviour. Alongside this, today’s youth struggle distinctly with mental health, with rates of suicide for those aged 10-24 in the US increasing 62% from 2007 to 2022. (JAMA Network). Now, correlation does not prove causation. However, the mere fact that once an algorithm recognises that a user has a history of self-harm or suicidal thoughts, through their interactions with relevant posts or communities, it is programmed to deliver similar content, is a revolting feature of such platforms. Indeed, upon noting that a user is predisposed to an eating disorder, within 24 hours, you are 4000% more likely to receive material concerning eating disorders on your TikTok feed.
This touches on the chief distinction between why the moral panic over social media is different from past concerns about emerging entertainment technologies. Past examples like violent games, such as Call of Duty, have involved and, in certain circumstances, glorified brutal violence, yet this has always been separate from reality. In a virtual world. Social media is so powerful because it is rooted in real life and in real social connection. Thus, when an unsuspecting child happens across self-harm support communities, suicidal content or violent footage of, say, a beheading, it is the utter reality of the material they are accessing that is greatly damaging. This material is desensitising and can normalise harmful thoughts and behaviours. Having access to this before you become a rational, fully developed adult places children at great danger.
Several high-profile cases have highlighted the inadequacy of social media platforms in stopping devastating harm to children, such as that of Sally Russel in 2017. These horrific examples have brought this issue into the limelight, forcing governments globally to confront their responsibility to push back on big technology corporations. In certain circumstances, algorithms behind social media platforms can greatly harm mental health, guiding vulnerable users towards content that will grasp their attention, no matter how it will affect the well-being of the user. Functioning as an attention economy, the health of a user does not matter to those wishing to foster greater engagement on platforms.
Building on the discussion on the danger of social media algorithms, echo-chambers and subsequent radicalisation are equally dangerous to society, arguably stemming from these platforms. Increasing polarisation can be linked to the divisive role social media plays in modern politics. Dissenting opinions are rarely fed to users by platforms such as X, leading to increasingly extremist and often racist worldviews taking root. This is a danger facing social media users of all ages, and something that must be confronted (If this topic interests you, read the FPW article ‘Agenda Creep’, linked below).
Rational adults should certainly be free to use social media however they please, so long as the risks of radicalisation and to mental health are disclosed before use, and so long as they do not cause harm to other users. Regarding this, J.S. Mill’s ‘harm principle’ must be digitally enforced, with The Online Safety Act 2023 attempting to establish this principle in the digital world. However, the government should go further; curbs must be placed on social media’s tendency to promote distressing content to those it understands as vulnerable to this content, thus making them susceptible to an attention trap. This applies to all ages, but children especially must be shielded from this threat. Reducing the amount of devastating harm social media users face has to be a central prerogative of the government. Children should be front and centre of this.
Developmental Harm
The harm social media brings to children in a developmental sense is also significant. While this issue is not life or death, it does affect most young people using such platforms, and so it must be addressed. The highly addictive and immersive nature of social media has led to the emergence of a phenomenon of ‘doomscrolling’. This negatively impacts a user’s attention span, rewiring the brain to crave fast and emotive content. Material that does not stimulate the brain in this manner becomes undesirable. These negative aspects of social media can be acknowledged by rational adults and thus mitigated individually.
Yet children, whose minds are in a developmental stage, should be largely shielded from this. Shortening attention spans, worsening critical thinking skills, and mental exhaustion are harmful to a child’s development, and while adults should be able to decide to use social media in whatever way they please – so long as it doesn’t harm others – children should not grow up in a culture where this is the norm.
Touch Grass
But is a blanket ban the best approach? The effectiveness of one, as highlighted by the Australian example, is negligible. Even the least tech-savvy children can download VPNs to sidestep the block, with this perhaps exacerbating risks faced by children by pushing their internet use out of a parental limelight and more into the shadows. Children may continue to use social media, but increasingly out of the watchful eye of their parents. From the 25th July 2025, under-18s had to provide proof of age to access harmful content online; the use of a VPN to sidestep a blanket social media ban will surpass this effective filtering of harmful content and potentially lead to more vulnerable children accessing distressing material. This could increase instances of devastating harm to children resulting from social media.
The government risks making a problem worse by pursuing a half-hearted policy. If the blanket social media ban for children is not accompanied by an under-16 ban on the use of VPNs, the problem will be made worse.
However, this policy can be a step in the right direction if implemented alongside restrictions on children's access to VPNs. There will certainly still be routes around and many children will remain on social media. However, what this policy will implement – even if VPNs are not banned in accompaniment - is a long-term cultural shift for our youth. The change will not be swift. However, the important point is that the use of social media will no longer be the cultural norm. The desire to use social media will shrink with falling youth engagement; no one wants to be the only person at the party. This will, eventually, decrease both devastating and developmental harm to children. This course of action must be taken.
A Fair Moral Panic?
Social media has an incredibly complex relationship with humanity, and it is not going away. It is a new modality that society must learn to live with. We may yet, in the future, dismiss this panic around social media – how ridiculous it sounds now to suggest that Dungeons and Dragons would have raised a Satanic generation. But for this to take place, pressure must be applied to change certain damaging aspects of social media that are incompatible with a well-functioning modern society.
Children must be protected from devastating and developmental harm. Equally, all users must be made aware of the damaging side effects of social media use. Furthermore, the politically divisive and polarising nature of algorithms must be challenged and reformed. Social media is clearly a more sinister moral panic than past hysterical examples, yet this threat can certainly be neutralised. The first step is always recognising we have a problem. How then, do we go on?
References
Nick Agar, Anna Curson, Damien Grant, 'Discussion on Mental Health and Social Media: Moral Panic or Real Problem?' lecture at the University of Waikato (12th February 2026), https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qVluftBEzsc.
Lisa H Jaycee, Eric R. Murphy, Julia L. Zehr, 'Social Media and Suicide Risk in Youth' Special Communication, Psychiatry in JAMA Network Open (25th October 2024), https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2825340.
Galea S, Buckley GJ, eds. Social media and adolescent mental health: A consensus report of the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. Vol 3. The National Academies Press; 2024. doi:10.17226/27396.