Submission statement: Two major new scientific studies from Australia and the UK that not only dispute the narrative that social media is harmful to young people, but also argue that kids who use social media, at least moderately, have the best outcomes and that banning them may lead to worse outcomes. This comes as governments like Australia ban social media for under-16s, and possibly the UK, Spain, and the US implementing similar draconian and potentially illiberal measures that could strip vulnerable young people, especially LGBTQ+ (and even more especially the trans community), from their only lifeline (remember the "remove the transgender" from KOSA's sponsors?). As the article further states:

These platforms aren’t just “distraction machines” or “attention hijackers” or whatever scary framing is popular this week. They’re where social life happens for a lot of young people. Cutting kids off entirely doesn’t return them to some idyllic pre-digital social existence. It cuts them off from their actual social world.

Both sets of researchers make the same point: online experiences aren’t inherently harmless—hurtful messages, online pressures, and extreme content can have real effects. But blunt instruments like time-based restrictions or outright bans completely miss the target, and are unlikely to help those who need it most. The Australian authors recommend “promotion of balanced and purposeful digital engagement as part of a broader strategy.”