In a new Adelaide University study, researchers claim they’ve identified a ‘sweet spot’ for teenagers’ use of social media, with moderate use (up to 12.5 hours/week) linked to more positive wellbeing.

While the findings may sound like good news for teenagers, researchers warn that there are caveats, with both excessive social media use and not using social media both associated with poorer wellbeing.

Lead author Dr Ben Singh says social media’s relationship with teen wellbeing is complex, varies by age and sex, and should not be viewed in black‑and‑white terms.

“Public debate often frames social media as being harmful to teenagers’ wellbeing, but our findings suggest the reality is far more nuanced,” Singh says.

“For girls, we found that moderate use of social media was linked to better wellbeing in their middle teenage years (Grades 7-9; ages 12-15) and onwards.

“It was the opposite for boys with those not using social media as they grew older at risk of poorer wellbeing.

In the younger years, Singh shares, not using social media had little impact on wellbeing, because children’s offline interactions can sufficiently meet their social needs.

“But by middle adolescence, social media becomes a key setting for peer connections, identity expression and belonging, making engagement in this space more important,” he says.

Overall, the strongest outcomes were among teenagers who used social media in moderation.

“These teens were far more likely to report positive wellbeing than those who had too much or too little social media engagement.

“It’s a real Goldilocks scenario – not too little and not too much social media is best for teenagers’ wellbeing.”

Research by University of Queensland Associate Professor in Biostatistics Asaduzzaman Khan suggests that as screen time increases, mental wellbeing tends to decline, with young people reporting lower life satisfaction.

“The strongest risks tend to cluster around high discretionary screen use and emotionally charged platform features (endless scrolling, likes),” Khan says.

“These can intensify worry, low mood, and stress, especially when exposure exceeds a few hours daily.”

Importantly, Khan shares, simply restricting screen time may not be the solution.

“A single hour of social media can be detrimental to one teen, while several hours for another might have a neutral effect – it all depends on what they’re viewing and how they’re engaging with it.”

The reality is the ban hasn’t stopped children accessing social media, but it has given parents an anchor and changed the conversation. Parents report feeling more supported in setting boundaries and kids are more aware of their habits.

The Adelaide University study analysed data from more than 100,000 Australian children and teenagers in Grades 4-12 across a three-year period (2019-2022) examining how time spent on social media relates to happiness, life satisfaction, emotional regulation and other key indicators of wellbeing.

While the research showed that social media is neither inherently harmful nor inherently beneficial for teenagers, it also reinforced concerns about high levels of use.

“Teenagers who reported the greatest social media use after school were consistently more likely to experience low wellbeing, including higher levels of sadness, worry and difficulty managing emotions,” Singh says.

“What the data points to is moderation, not extremes, as the healthiest pattern overall.

“Helping teenagers find a healthy middle ground may be more effective than a blanket ban or total avoidance.”

Almost five months on from Australia’s banned social media access for under-16s, widespread frustration remains that children are still able to access platforms such as Snapchat, Instagram and TikTok.

In its first compliance report on the legislation, eSafety said despite overall reductions in account ownership, a substantial proportion of children under 16 retained accounts on age-restricted platforms”.

In a survey of nearly 900 parents, many said their children still had access to social media.

“Of the parents who reported their child had an account on each platform prior to 10 December 2025, around 7 in 10 reported that their child still had an account on Facebook (63.6 per cent), Instagram (69.1 per cent), Snapchat (69.4 per cent), and TikTok (69.3 per cent).

“Around 3 in 10 reported that their child no longer had an account. One in two of these parents (48.5 per cent) reported that their child still had an account on YouTube following the age restrictions coming into effect,” the report said.

Prior to the ban, the survey respondents said about 49.7 per cent of their kids had social media; post-ban, that was down to 31.3 per cent.

The report’s findings forced the eSafety Commissioner to announced last month that it is moving from a compliance monitoring position, to one of enforcement.

“We will not hesitate to take enforcement action where appropriate,” a spokesperson said.

If found to be non-compliant, platforms face infringement notices and civil penalties

Most children who are still using restricted platforms have not needed to find workarounds like VPNs or using accounts with fake birthdates – because platforms have failed to identify and remove their accounts in the first place.

With other countries around the world working to establish a similar ban, it seems tech companies are incentivised to make the rollout in Australia as wobbly as possible, particularly given the impact bans could have on the huge European and American markets.

Federal Minister for Communications Anika Wells said social media platforms are pushing back against the ban, and she expects the implementation of the new laws to be “untidy on the way through”.

“Big tech is using every play in the playbook,” Wells said in a statement.

“They are worried that now more than a dozen countries have followed Australia and that these laws are rolling out in different places across the world.”