The conversation around keeping kids off social media until they’re older just got louder. A new Angus Reid Institute poll shows three-quarters of Canadians back a full ban on social platforms for anyone under sixteen. That’s not a slim majority. That’s a wave.
Parents, mental health advocates, and policy watchers are now asking the same question: should Canada follow Australia’s lead and write age restrictions into law? Or does a blanket ban do more harm than good?
The poll results land at a moment when provincial governments are already tightening the screws. Some school boards have banned phones during class. Others are pushing digital literacy programs. But this poll suggests Canadians want more than half-measures.
Jenny Perez runs Unplugged Canada, a parent-led group that’s been banging this drum for a while now. She wants families to hold off on smartphones until fourteen and social media until sixteen. Her focus isn’t on banning screens altogether. It’s on delaying exposure to the kind of content that pulls kids into endless scrolling.
“They affect the attention span, the capacity to concentrate and to perform and carrying on other activities,” Perez told Global News. She’s talking about apps built around short videos and infinite feeds. The kind that hook you in and don’t let go.
Her organization isn’t calling for kids to be cut off from the internet entirely. They want preparation. They want young people to understand what they’re walking into before they open their first account. “We would love to see more digital literacy and more education and preparation, so by the time that they can access these platforms, they are ready, and they use them more as a tool, and indeed, to connect, rather than being disconnected,” she said.
That word—disconnected—comes up a lot in this debate. And it cuts both ways.
Stephen Sutherland with the Canadian Mental Health Association agrees that social media can be risky. But he warns that shutting the door completely might isolate the very kids who need connection most. He’s thinking about rural communities. Remote areas where a school counsellor might be hours away. Places where online support groups are sometimes the only lifeline.
“This is not meant to disconnect kids,” Sutherland said. “Let’s not confuse ourselves with what the chief aim is. And the chief aim is to keep kids safe and to ensure that parents, caregivers, educators have the tools and resources that they can use to help navigate youth to what’s going to be helpful for them.”
That’s the tension. Social media can be harmful. It can also be a bridge. The question is whether we can separate the two.
Cynthia Schoppmann, an Ottawa psychotherapist, says pulling kids off social media entirely means losing some of the good along with the bad. “I think it is important to also consider that some of those benefits would be also taken away if we go to that place of banning it all together,” she told Global News.
She’s right to point out the trade-off. For some teens, online communities offer support they can’t find at home or school. For others, it’s a creative outlet or a way to stay in touch with friends who’ve moved away. A ban doesn’t make those needs disappear.
But Schoppmann also acknowledges the obvious. Avoiding social media in 2025 is nearly impossible. “Definitely it remains a challenge, because technology is just so integrated now in our day-to-day lives,” she said.
And that’s the kicker. We’re not talking about a world where kids can simply opt out. Social media is baked into how schools communicate, how sports teams organize, how friend groups plan weekends. Telling a sixteen-year-old to stay offline is like telling them to skip the hallway between classes.
Still, other countries are moving ahead. Australia passed a law last year banning social media for anyone under sixteen. France, Denmark, and Indonesia have followed with their own versions. The models vary, but the intent is the same: protect kids from platforms that weren’t designed with their well-being in mind.
Then there’s the legal shift happening in the United States. Last week, two major court cases cracked open the door for platforms to be held liable for harm. That’s a big deal. For years, tech companies have hidden behind Section 230, a law that shields them from being sued over user-generated content. These cases suggest that shield might not hold forever.
The Angus Reid poll also asked Canadians whether platforms should be held accountable if a social media ban were broken here. Most said yes. That tells you something about where public anger is pointed. It’s not just at kids for spending too much time online. It’s at the companies that built the traps.
So where does that leave federal policy? Right now, nowhere concrete. The Liberal government has floated ideas around online safety legislation, but nothing that touches age-based bans directly. Provincial leaders have been more vocal, but enforcement remains a question mark. How do you verify age without creating privacy problems? Who pays for oversight? What happens when a kid uses a VPN or lies about their birthday?
These aren’t small details. They’re the difference between a law that works and one that becomes a punchline.
There’s also the question of whether a ban addresses the root problem. Social media companies design their platforms to maximize engagement. That means algorithms that feed you content based on what keeps you scrolling, not what’s good for you. A sixteen-year-old might be more emotionally equipped than a thirteen-year-old, but they’re still up against the same manipulative design.
Some advocates argue we should be regulating the platforms, not just the users. Make companies dial down the dopamine triggers. Limit data collection on minors. Require transparency in how algorithms work. That’s a harder fight, but maybe a more effective one.
For now, the poll numbers give politicians something to work with. Seventy-five per cent support is hard to ignore, especially heading into an election year. Whether that translates into legislation depends on how willing leaders are to take on both tech giants and the logistical mess of enforcement.
Parents like Perez aren’t waiting. They’re organizing. They’re talking to other families. They’re making the case that delaying social media isn’t about fear. It’s about giving kids time to build resilience before the apps get their hooks in.
The debate isn’t going away. If anything, it’s just getting started.
