France’s recent social media ban for minors under 15 has reignited the conversation of whether the U.S. should follow suit. America’s hesitancy is surprising from the perspective of someone who was that age not too long ago.

The debate surrounding a ban on social media has largely moved past questioning whether social platforms are positive, negative, or neutral tools. Studies abound demonstrating the addictive properties of social media and their correlation to sleeplessness, self-image issues, anxiety, and suicidal thoughts — especially among minors. The surgeon general even issued a statement recommending health warnings on social media platforms, akin to those required for tobacco companies, and limiting minors’ access. By 2026, most people don’t need convincing that social media has its problems.

Moreover, research shows that the benefits of social media largely only exist because a majority of teenagers use it. The Pew Research Center finds over half of U.S. teens use YouTube, TikTok, Instagram, and Snapchat, placing those who forgo the platforms in the minority. Consequently, Pew found teenagers who choose to join the trend of social media use it because it makes them feel more accepted and connected with their fellow platform-using peers. This desire to fit in with peers, or “fear of missing out” (FOMO), would be a nonfactor if social media platforms were removed from teenage demographics entirely.

Moderates often try to walk the line between seeing social media as harmful and helpful by describing it as a neutral “tool” — but it is not the neutral tool many think. Social media algorithms are designed to spark engagement, often by rewarding controversial or inflammatory content. Earlier this year, whistleblowers inside Meta, the owner of Instagram and Facebook, even reported receiving instructions to allow more misogynistic, violent, and conspiratorial content when stock prices were down so engagement would go up. As a result, children are exposed to more radical political and religious perspectives than they likely ever would in their in-person lives — all without the knowledge or oversight of their parents. 

As children engage with this content, social media algorithms are designed to reward their engagement with more similar content, creating an echo-chamber effect. Uncoincidentally, radicalism on both sides of the political spectrum has increased among younger demographics. Polls show a quarter of young liberals now justify violence against their political opponents and almost two-thirds support socialist policies, all while young conservatives line up behind problematic voices like Nick Fuentes and Candace Owens. The echo chamber validates these extreme perspectives, places children in communities of millions of others who validate the views, and demonizes opponents — all while ensuring users never have to see or hear neutral, humble, or different points of view.

Anecdotally and academically, we know social media is harmful for our kids. And, though cellphone bans are recent and data is scarce, we have reason to believe less screen time is a positive.

State bans on cellphones in high schools give a hint at what the impact of a teenage demographic without social media could look like. A study released in April 2026 by the National Bureau of Economic Research examined 43,000 middle and high school students affected by cellphone bans in 26 U.S. states. Their findings discovered a brief adjustment period, followed by significant drops in cellphone usage and increases in student well-being. 

So, other problems with French politics aside, why is the U.S. so reluctant to follow in their footsteps? 

According to some conservative experts and parental rights advocates, concern stems from the idea that a widespread federal ban on student social media would replace parental authority with federal regulation. 

And perhaps the concern is warranted. In the past, other areas of parental involvement, like sex education, have resulted in harmful ideology and federal regulation worming its way in and undermining parental influence. Just last month, the Trump administration announced over $67 million in Teen Pregnancy Prevention program cuts to remove explicit content, abortion ads, and LGBTQ+ ideology from what was meant to be practical, objective health education. 

But are parents up for the challenge of social media? 

The numbers suggest maybe not. Pew Research data shows that Gen X and Baby Boomers use top social media platforms drastically less than younger generations, suggesting parents are unfamiliar with the functions, dangers, or tools available on each platform, not to mention the frequent new updates. And even if parents are up-to-date, children in public school or out-of-the-house activities spend hours a day away from their parents using a myriad of social-capable devices — personal cellphones, laptops, e-readers, school computers, smartwatches, and even video gaming consoles. It is presumptuous for parents to think they can be aware of — let alone control — all the ways their children access the internet. 

Plus, in my experience, when it comes to social media, even the most proactive parent can be undermined by determined children. In high school, when friends would have their cellphones taken away or parental controls added, they would just access their accounts through another friend’s device at school or, believe it or not, buy a pre-paid burner phone online without their parents’ knowledge (Amazon has a whole category for it). Several friends used burner phones for years, all while their parents were thinking their devices were safely protected.

In contrast, the U.S. has a long precedent of restricting dangerous content at its source for the sake of children, and largely for the best. Consider alcohol, or tobacco, or pornography. Imagine a child could walk into a bar and order a drink, and the bartender could serve him or her because a parent was not around. Such an interaction is unthinkable — not to mention illegal — in today’s society. Instead, the bartender is required to check ID, maintain a valid liquor license, and prevent the customer from drinking or driving irresponsibly. Failure to do so means heavy legal consequences for a bar — so why not hold social media companies to the same standard?

The Bible is clear that children are the charge of parents (Deuteronomy 6:6-7), and that parents are responsible for raising children up in the way they should go (Proverbs 22:6). Such authority should never be ceded to a government body. But the Bible also prescribes law and biblical authority to government to protect families from greater societal threats. 

Whether it’s alcohol or social media, parents should always guide the conversation for how their children approach tricky topics. But with addiction, mental health crises, and radicalism on the rise, perhaps it’s time to consider that social media companies can access children in more ways than parents can protect them.

In the end, a social media ban would not mean parents give up on protecting or teaching their children — it just means parents can do it best with a little help.