The social media ban sceptic who says kids need a wider fix

Candice Odgers, a psychologist who has spent 25 years studying adolescent mental health, is pushing back against the idea that banning social media for teenagers is the main answer to online harm. In an interview published by The Guardian, she argued that the public conversation about smartphones may be pulling attention away from some of the larger forces shaping young people’s lives and wellbeing.

The social media ban sceptic and her warning

Odgers is not denying that online life can be dangerous for children and teenagers. But she is sceptical that a broad social media ban is the most effective response. Her view is that the discussion has become too narrow, with too much emphasis on the device in a teenager’s hand and not enough on the wider environment around them.

In the Guardian interview, she said the quickest way to make the internet safer for children and teens would be to remove adult men from it, because she sees them as the biggest perpetrators of sextortion and among the most likely to spread misinformation. She immediately rejected that idea as a real policy option, calling it unfair and extreme, but used it to underline her larger point: the most obvious targets are not always the most useful ones.

That argument places her in contrast to campaigners and thinkers who want stronger limits on teenage social media use. Odgers does not appear to deny the risks, but she wants those risks assessed alongside other pressures affecting adolescent mental health.

Why she says the debate misses bigger problems

Odgers believes the current focus on phones can obscure more significant challenges facing young people. Among those she highlighted were the impact of Covid and the health of adult caregivers.

That matters because adolescent mental health is shaped by far more than app design or screen time alone. Family stress, caregiving stability, and broader social disruption can all affect how young people cope, and Odgers is urging a wider lens when policymakers think about prevention.

Her position is based on long experience. Having studied adolescents for a quarter of a century, she has watched the debate move from general concern about internet use to calls for hard restrictions. Her intervention suggests that the policy conversation may be moving faster than the evidence on what actually helps young people most.

What the argument means for policymakers

The wider significance of Odgers’ comments is that they challenge a simple solution to a complicated problem. If teenage mental health is influenced by online harms, pandemic-era disruption, and the wellbeing of the adults around them, then a ban on social media alone may not address the root causes.

That does not mean online platforms are harmless. The Guardian interview makes clear that Odgers sees real dangers in digital spaces, especially around sextortion and misinformation. But she is arguing for proportion rather than panic, and for policy that reflects the full shape of the problem.

For parents, schools and governments, that raises a practical question: should they keep treating smartphones as the central issue, or should they also focus on family health, community support and the after-effects of Covid on young people’s lives?

Odgers’ answer is that the conversation needs to widen. Her view is not that online harm should be ignored, but that the debate over bans may be crowding out a more useful discussion about what actually supports adolescent mental health.

As the argument over social media regulation continues, her intervention serves as a reminder that the biggest risk to young people may not be a single app or platform, but a cluster of pressures that cannot be solved with one headline policy.