‘Social media needs a health warning’: Readers on kids’ rising screen time

Independent readers have hit back hard on the dangers of screen time for young children and the grip of social media, reacting to new government guidance and a landmark US trial that found Meta and YouTube liable for addiction.

Many painted a stark picture of the risks, warning that even limited screen use can dull curiosity, slow learning, and replace real-world play.

Nostalgia ran through the comments, with readers longing for a time when children played outside, built friendships face-to-face, and weren’t exposed to online grooming, bullying, or the constant bombardment of misinformation.

Several highlighted parental responsibility, stressing that young children rely on adults to set limits and model healthy digital habits. But readers were just as quick to call out tech giants, arguing that platforms deliberately design addictive feeds, push harmful content, and profit from exploiting users’ attention and data – and that they must be held accountable.

Across the debate, the message was clear: children need guidance, parents need support, and social media companies must face the consequences of their designs.

Here’s what you had to say:

Not a fair fight

Those who say “just stop using the apps”, miss two important points.

Addiction is different for different people. I had no problem drastically reducing my alcohol consumption, with none of the withdrawal symptoms or cravings that I’d been told to expect. But I know that I’m just lucky and that some people really struggle with it.

Companies like Meta invest many millions of dollars in crafting products that are uniquely addictive. You, as a user, are up against this. It’s hardly a fair fight.

RickC

It’s not just young people

The obsession is not limited to younger people. I have seen older people who keep the phone next to them when they eat in restaurants. That has another reason. They are lonely, have no contact with other people and enjoy receiving and sending messages with jokes and political news. In good old days people called each other but now only send messages. That makes people more lonely.

TotiCalling

Screen time for young children

The only screen a child aged under five should be watching is a cartoon on TV, and even that should be limited.

Social media has now proven to be toxically addictive in an extremely negative way.

Never mind it being banned for those under 16, it should be banned for all of us because I cannot think of one positive attribute it has brought to anyone, including interaction with our friends.

Bring back the good old days before social media, when kids were allowed to be kids, they played outside with their friends instead of being hooked to a tablet, groomed by sick actors, and bullied online.

Back to a place where lies weren’t the truth, hostile states were unable to sway people’s political opinions, people could not be groomed into extremists, and false actors could not convince people online that they were communicating with their banks and persuade them to transfer their entire life savings into a new account.

The vast majority of our country’s leaders know that social media isn’t working for us and is damaging democracy, but who will have the guts to admit that and then completely ban it outright?

As for screen time for under-fives, unless you’re an extremely stressed parent with a lot on your plate, I think the majority are responsible enough to curb their own screen time for young children. If they’re not, then hopefully the advice from the government will help, but what I will not do, as so many do, is blame the parents because nobody else knows what it’s like to walk in their shoes.

Amy

Social media needs a health warning

Social media is just an example of ‘better’ targeted advertising. Better, in this case, means any method possible to attract and keep attention and gain valuable data for resale. That’s it. Maybe a ‘health warning’ stating this could be inserted into every page to deter the unwary, as the saying goes. Preventing misuse of the above rule is important. Management of the social media companies must face shutdown or imprisonment, not fines.

Noseplus

Extreme screen time avoidance

If you’re a parent who chooses to avoid or drastically limit screen time, or — God forbid — no screen time before two, then you’re on your own. And that’s us. We literally have not met anyone currently raising a young child who is also taking such an ‘extreme’ approach. We’re the mean parents depriving our child of his own tablet, Bluey, the third parent Miss Rachel, and the other heroes.

I’m sad that this is the new normal, and scared for the kind of generation that will come out of this. No need for studies to see the effects of screen time on kids — just look at their faces watching something. There’s a blank stare into nowhere. Nothing is going on inside their heads that is capable of learning things at an amazing pace, and naturally being incredibly curious — screens are like a super slow lobotomy.

Whynot22

Platforms should take responsibility

I have to admit I’m unconvinced about the “boo-hoo, addiction” claim. It’s hard for kids these days (or often anyone without a limited social circle) to opt out of social media entirely, of course, but I’m unconvinced that’s the same thing as an addiction per se, and it stinks a bit too much of cheapening the concept of actual addiction.

I am, however, very keen to see these huge platforms — which, let’s not forget, make all their money off the back of their users and the data they harvest — forced to take responsibility for the filth and harmful content their algorithms are designed to push our way. If you’ve ever wondered why your Facebook feed went straight from an echo chamber of you and your friends to 80 per cent content you don’t follow and didn’t ask for, it’s largely because of two things: petulance right from the top — “Oh, you don’t want echo chambers, do you? Fine, here’s the other stuff you didn’t sign up for” — and the discovery that people will very often engage more and for longer with content with which they disagree strongly. Enhanced engagement equals greater profit.

PadraigMahone

Social media content moderation

This case surely opens a can of worms. Can we sue oil companies and car manufacturers for selling products that contribute to cancer and other diseases? Can we sue petrochemical companies for mass-producing plastics that end up in our food and drinking water? How about suing tobacco companies for selling products directly linked to cancer and heart disease?

While I don’t disagree that these platforms are designed to hook you, I’m not too sure I agree that the platform, as opposed to the content, was a substantial factor in her declining mental health. I do think they need to do more to moderate content. There are so many lies that people blindly believe.

Itsme

Parental responsibility

Yes, the platforms are designed to keep you coming back, and the protections and controls are inadequate, but the young person involved in this case started using social media at the age of six and was addicted by the age of nine. There is also a significant question of parental responsibility. What were her parents doing? At six, she is not buying her own phone or iPad. Her parents enabled her behaviour, and apparently stood back and let it happen until it was too late.

Giotto1301

Some of the comments have been edited for this article for brevity and clarity.

Want to share your views? Simply register your details below. Once registered, you can comment on the day’s top stories for a chance to be featured. Alternatively, click ‘log in’ or ‘register’ in the top right corner to sign in or sign up.

Make sure you adhere to our community guidelines, which can be found here. For a full guide on how to comment, click here.