Should teenagers be banned from social media?
The Economist
February 23, 2026
AI-Generated Deep Dive Summary
The article argues that banning teenagers from social media is counterproductive and does more harm than good. Readers overwhelmingly supported the idea that young people should not have their internet access restricted, sparking a heated debate about the benefits and risks of social media use. The discussion highlighted the importance of allowing teenagers to navigate digital platforms independently, as it fosters skill development, creativity, and adaptability in an increasingly connected world.
Proponents of unrestricted access emphasize that social media can be a tool for growth, enabling teens to build digital literacy, communication skills, and entrepreneurial mindset. They argue that limiting their exposure could hinder their ability to engage with the modern economy and innovation-driven industries. Critics, however, raise concerns about online safety, mental health impacts, and potential misuse of platforms.
The debate underscores the broader implications for businesses and policymakers. Restricting teenagers' access to social media could limit companies' ability to tap into a growing demographic of digital consumers. At the same time, fostering responsible digital engagement among young people is essential for building a skilled workforce and preparing them for future career opportunities in an interconnected world.
Ultimately, the discussion highlights the need for balanced approaches that prioritize safety without stifling innovation and independence. By allowing teenagers to explore social media under guidance, society can empower them to thrive in an increasingly digital economy while mitigating potential risks. This approach aligns with both economic interests and the long-term development of young people.
Verticals
businesseconomics
Originally published on The Economist on 2/23/2026