I had hoped that a proposal to restrict social media access for children under fifteen in the Czech Republic might pass through the realm of expert debate without immediately becoming fodder for partisan warfare. That hope now seems naïve.
Because national conservatives currently hold power, liberals and progressives have reflexively lined up in opposition. The oligarch Ivo Lukačovič—who appears to fancy himself a local George Soros—has already stepped forward to defend the “right” of social media platforms to shape young minds as they see fit. Others will surely follow. Before long, we may be grateful if the activists do not fill Prague’s Wenceslas Square to protest the alleged “Babiš dictatorship” (current Czech prime minister) that dares to deprive children of their sacred screen time.
Meanwhile, at the opposite end of the spectrum, conspiracy theories are already circulating online about secret cabals of Jews and Illuminati plotting to enslave us by blocking Facebook. In today’s political climate, even a discussion about teenage mental health cannot avoid spiraling into caricature.
One common objection to age restrictions is that verifying users’ age would require identity checks—an apparent end to online anonymity. But this objection rests on a fiction. True anonymity on major platforms has not existed for years. Social media companies will not let you open an account without logging your IP address, which ensures that you remain traceable. You may call yourself “Red Tiger” and conceal your identity from your neighbor, but not from the state—or from the platform itself.
The more serious question is whether it is truly established that social media harms children and adolescents. Here, the evidence is more sober than the rhetoric.
We know the following with reasonable certainty:
-
There is a clear correlation between time spent on social media and psychological distress. The more time young people spend online, the higher the risk of severe depression and pathological anxiety.
-
We do not possess absolute certainty about causation. It is possible to argue that anxious and lonely individuals—particularly anxious teenage girls—are simply drawn to social media in greater numbers, and that the platforms are not the root cause. There are substantial reasons to doubt this counterargument, but some degree of uncertainty remains.
-
What we can say with confidence is that social media use tends to exacerbate existing problems. When an already anxious person begins spending significant time on platforms such as Facebook, that anxiety tends to intensify.
Notably, researchers have struggled to identify clear, measurable psychological benefits. One may speculate that users make friends, gain confidence, or access valuable information. Yet to date, robust evidence for such broad positive effects is lacking.
Must all social networks function this way? Not necessarily. One can imagine—at least in theory—platforms whose algorithms are designed to support healthy psychological development, resilience, and optimism rather than outrage and insecurity. At present, however, such platforms do not meaningfully exist.
Perhaps the current wave of regulatory pressure will push technology firms to experiment with something healthier. If nothing else, the controversy has revealed how deeply dependent we have become on systems whose long-term effects on the young remain, at best, uncertain—and at worst, corrosive.