Protecting Kids from Social Media Isn’t Overreacting—It’s Smart Parenting

Why the Wall Street Journal got it wrong when it comes to kids and social media

I read an essay published in The Wall Street Journal at the end of last month entitled “Stop Panicking Over Teens and Social Media.” Based on the title, you can probably guess what the author’s main argument was: that social media is not the culprit behind the teen mental health crisis and that laws designed to keep children off of social media until at least the age of 16—like the one that recently passed in Australia—are not only missing the mark but are “sledgehammer solutions” rooted in “panic.”

While the author disagrees that social media is the cause of the teen mental health crisis, it is interesting that she offers no alternative theories. And instead of laws regulating the use of social media, the author suggests that parents simply moderate their teen’s use (as if it is that easy) and suggests that doing so is an important step in teaching our children how to navigate a digital world. “Modern life is digital,” she writes. “Adults need to help young people navigate the costs and benefits, not launch bans and hope for the best.”

Of course, I disagree. In fact, it has been a good while since I have disagreed with something so viscerally. These strawman arguments about moderation in a digital world are not only worn out; they are dangerous. Moderation has been the prevailing advice when it comes to teens and social media, and after over a decade of social media’s existence, it’s clear it doesn’t work. We need better solutions. Not “sledgehammer solutions,” but ones based on common sense and science.

I disagreed with this article so strongly that I felt compelled to write directly to the author, Lucy Foulkes. I look forward to her response, should she choose to send one, but in the meantime, I hope that these are counterarguments you can use yourself, perhaps not against an opinion columnist in The Wall Street Journal, but in a constructive conversation with family or friends who suggest that your natural instinct to parent is ever an “overreaction.”

As for what to say to your kids when they accuse you of “overreacting,” remember our Kids Brains’ & Screens series was designed to do exactly that. Our full curriculum is available for purchase now, and our new Home Edition will be launching in a few weeks—stay tuned!

---

Dear Ms. Foulkes,

I recently read your essay, Stop Panicking Over Teens and Social Media, and while I respect your right to an opinion, I strongly disagree with your conclusions. Laws designed to keep children off social media until at least the age of 16 are not an overreaction—they are an important natural step in safeguarding millions of teenagers from well-documented risks. To suggest otherwise ignores the mounting evidence of harm and downplays our responsibility to protect young people during their most vulnerable years.

Yes, we live in a digital age. But we also live in a car-driving age, and while teenagers will eventually drive, laws that stop them from getting behind the wheel before age 16 prevent serious harm and even save lives. The same logic applies to social media. Delaying access isn’t about “banning” or denying children a tool they’ll eventually use; it’s about ensuring that, when they do have access, they are developmentally ready to handle the tool safely.

By implying parents are overreacting, you dismiss not only legitimate concerns and scientific evidence that support delaying social media use through the teenage years but also insult parents who are working hard to reverse the very painful consequences their teens have suffered. Parents who share their experiences and ask for change are not fearmongering; they are not behaving out of emotion. On the contrary, actually. These parents are behaving quite rationally. They are recognizing a failed experiment, one that has harmed innocent families and needs to be course-corrected before more damage is done.

Your argument—that we must simply accept social media as an inevitable part of modern life and teach teens to use it "in moderation"—is neither new nor convincing. We have heard it since the dawn of social media. The reality is that moderation is often an illusion, as these platforms are intentionally designed to maximize engagement and exploit developing brains.

Social media is not new. Parents’ requests to pass age limits around social media are not reactionary to new technology; they are coming at the end of a decade-long struggle to control screen use and its influence in their homes. Throughout that decade, parents have been told by experts such as yourself that the key is moderation—moderation, moderation, moderation. But if moderation was as easy as people like you make it out to be, would we be where we are today, where teenagers average almost 9 hours on entertainment screens daily?

You take issue with the studies Jonathan Haidt cited in his book The Anxious Generation, which highlight the connection between increased social media use and declining teen mental health. Truthfully, I take issue with the studies cited in your essay as well. Teen surveys are not the same as scientific evidence, and the scientific evidence shows that excessive screen use, along with the harmful content on social media, negatively impacts children’s brain development, mental health, and close relationships. Asking teens if they enjoy social media—as was the basis for the 2024 study you cited—is not evidence that it is good for them. If you asked teenagers if they enjoyed candy, they would say, “Yes,” too, but I still would not allow it for dinner.

Furthermore, I find the results of the 2021 Dutch study you cited to not be evidence that social media is largely positive. In fact, I find them to be quite alarming. To say that “only” 28% of children reported a decline in mental health after using social media is to miss the fact that 28% is nearly 1 in 3 children. If any other activity had a 1 in 3 chance of hurting my child’s mental health, I would not allow it in my home, and I would hope the government would take the same stance and use the power of the law to support me. That’s not “drastic” or asking for a “sledgehammer solution.” That’s common sense.

Despite many disagreements, there is one part of your argument I will agree with, and that is that restricting social media use until at least age 18 will not immediately improve our teens’ mental health. That is also not what Jonathan Haidt nor the parents advocating for these laws think will happen either.

By skipping social media through adolescence, we are giving our children back the time they need (almost 9 hours a day, remember) to do the things that will allow for healthy brain development and good mental health: real-life rites of passage, fun experiences, social relationships, and healthy challenges that build grit and confidence. The argument for delaying social media is not about rejecting modern life; it is about following our instincts and logic and aligning with what we know about adolescent brain development. It’s about equipping our children with the real-world experiences they need so that they can ultimately thrive as adults.

Social media is not mandatory for teens. Nor is it a prerequisite for life success, happiness, or even social connection. What is mandatory, however, is that we stop pretending that this debate is about overprotective parents versus progressive digital literacy. We must stop pretending that skipping social media is synonymous with skipping the Internet and modern technology entirely. We must begin to support parents as they manage the risks and choose a different path. Our focus should be on safeguarding childhood, giving teens time to develop real-world resilience, educating them on the medical issue of screen addiction, and recognizing that some technologies simply do not belong in adolescent hands. After all, we are not talking about forever; we are simply referring to middle school and the 48 months of high school, which is a short time to give our teens benefits that will last a lifetime.

While you may have experience as a psychologist working with teens, I challenge you to sit with a mother whose once-thriving child is now self-harming, socially withdrawn, or suicidal after falling into the toxic traps of social media. Tell her that she is "panicking." Tell her that her efforts to remove social media from her child's life are "drastic." I assure you, she will tell you that taking away the device was the first step in saving her child. She doesn’t have time to care about studies that may or may not validate her teen’s pain–she is living it.

Haidt’s The Anxious Generation resonated deeply with parents, not because it gave them something to panic about but because it validated what they are experiencing in their homes: social media is not neutral. It is an all-consuming dopaminergic force that profoundly shapes a child's self-perception, relationships, and ability to engage in the real world. At its best, it wastes over one-third of our children’s day; at its worst, it spurs anxiety and depression and pulls them away from our families. So why are we defending its use so hard?

History will not look kindly on the decision to hand teens a portal to addiction, comparison culture, rejection, and exploitation. But there is still time to course-correct—and we must. Rather than using dismissive language to undermine parents' concerns or calling for yet another attempt at "better management" of social media—yet again—we should be supporting them and advocating for a higher standard and a childhood free from social media’s grasp.

Ms. Foulkes, I am sad that the poster in your local café made you want to throw your coffee at the wall, perhaps truly a “drastic” overreaction. But trust me, parents are not in a panic. We are wise and strong. Our goal is to protect. Our goal is to parent. Our goal is to remove the obvious risks and offer a calm childhood full of life and hope. And that is exactly what we will continue to do.

Sincerely,

Melanie Hempe, BSN, Founder of ScreenStrong

ScreenStrong Resources

Podcast - “Australia Raises Social Media Age to 16: A Conversation with Dany Elachi”

Podcast - “Breaking Screen Addiction: A Teen’s Perspective on Setting Boundaries”

Melanie Hempe, BSN, is the founder of ScreenStrong, a nonprofit organization, and the author of the Kids’ Brains and Screens Series for students and parents. She is dedicated to preventing and reversing childhood screen addictions by providing scientific evidence and community for families around the globe. Her educational material is filled with everything she wished she had known before her oldest child suffered from a screen addiction. ScreenStrong has created what every family needs—education and the community—to skip toxic screens through adolescence so teens can reach their full potential.

Visit here for our popular Kids’ Brains & Screens series and here for our Phone-Free Schools Guide, and visit ScreenStrong.org to learn more and join the community that is saving childhood.