Parents across the country are scared, looking at their children glued to their devices, filled with fear about their prospects. How is my child going to grow into a world that they barely interact with, if not through their iPad?
The impact of social media on adolescent mental health is a topic well-versed by scholars, with new articles being published each week, unsurprisingly warning everyone away from addictive sites for their safety. Correlations have been drawn in bright red ink: social media and poor mental health, a relationship embedded within the youth of our society. And while efforts to counterbalance this with talks of increasing educational platforms or benefits of staying connected with family and friends, etc have been spoken of, it seems like we as a society have condemned social media as an unsafe space for our children.
With the UK Governmentâs new legislation to ban social media for under-16s, itâs a promising hope for the future of young children, possibly being able to live freely without the burden of such constant monitoring and dopamine hooks constructed by addictive algorithms. But is this all a bit of a pipe dream- too little, too late to save our children from this global nightmare of constant connection?
Alongside the ban, the government provided statistics revealing a strong sense of support for the new piece of legislation. In the spring of 2026, 9/10 parents supported a ban for under-16s on social media, demonstrating their belief that children should not be on the platforms for a wide array of reasons. Yet, this poses many interesting questions about the dynamics we have with social media. If 90% of parents likely oppose children being on social media, why are there still so many on the platforms? Is there a culture that forces parents to give in and let their child be on social media so as not to be isolated?
A lack of control for parents, where social media forces them into a power dynamic in which they must give in to their child? Intrinsically, it is to be expected that if parents are so opposed to their children having social media, given they are the ones with responsibility for their children, it seems that they would prevent this from being the case? Or possibly they are unable to. Is it because social media also has its hooks deep into the parents too? Or, akin to many other forms of addiction, once someone has access to it initially, it is hard to be weaned off it?
I feel the latter is a likely explanation. And for that, I place the blame not towards parents and children who suffer from the addiction, but rather on the creators of the addictive algorithms that pull them in. In this light, it changes the narrative of Gen Alpha, the social media addicted generation. It reminds us who truly is responsible for this influx of social media addicted children, who used their degrees and extra life experience to prey on more vulnerable members of society for more clicks and shares. More money filling their pockets at the expense of children who will enter the world for the first time readily prepared with a full-fledged addiction to an uncontrolled, addictive substance: any social media platform of their choice.
Under this view, the consequence we have of introducing social media and the internet to our children at such a young age, causing mental health issues, is that of the addictive algorithms. They are literally programmed to hook people in and work faster and stronger on the vulnerable minds of the youth. Even if they wished not to have been brought up this way, the world children grow up in demands constant access to social media for socialising and education. Itâs almost impossible for them to draw a line for themselves on their own media usage when so many facets of their life are dominated by this internet presence. The only option is to engage or theyâre isolated from the rest of the globe, meaning missing out on staying up to date on the news and popular culture as well as reducing their access to their peers.
This conundrum reflects a system that has set Generation Alpha up to fail. Theyâre doomed if they do and doomed if they donât. Interestingly, itâs the older generations who are responsible for constructing this system, yet the younger ones who pay the price of it, one major tax being the stigma surrounding their generation. Lazy, unmotivated, phone-addicted generation, yet the older generations defined the context they were brought up in and parented them into these habits that they are blamed for continuing.
While I do agree that looking at the newer generation of children glued to their iPads is rather alarming, we have to remember that they were not born this way but were raised to act this way. Even so, the blame shouldnât be entirely on the parents either, who are also often helpless in the battle against social media and internet addiction. The figure of excessive screen time among adolescents creeps up with each month that goes by, and much of it goes unregulated, with no guidelines for use.
The notion that the next generation is born-and-bred iPad kids would fill any concerned person with dread: how are we to trust that the world will be safe in the hands of a generation that only knows how to behave through a screen rather than real-world interaction? Though I think thereâs a deeper issue with why so many children are given their screens initially.
While they obviously become addicted to the dopamine traps of gamification and high-volume algorithmic content, to even reach this point, their parents must consistently give them their devices to begin the association. Iâd argue this response has become a default for so many parents who are themselves dealing with the stress and exhaustion of the real world. As the cost of living goes up, house prices, petrol and food are becoming hot commodities; itâs no wonder that parents will use screens as the price for a moment of peace.
All in all, this build-up of the response and the constant algorithms of the devices keeping children hooked is what ultimately forms this attachment that is then so hard to get rid of, specifically as it was constructed in the childâs formative years. The lethal combination of the exhausted parent passing the dopamine hook to the child.
But even still, it doesnât leave the blame entirely with the parent; it reflects a system we, as a society, have unfortunately constructed, which makes it so difficult to be on either side of the parent-child dynamic in this day and age. For that, I believe we need to place less blame on both sides for the childâs âbrain rotâ behaviour and look towards those who profit from this borderline exploitation. I think the steps made to reduce social media usage already made across the globe are incredibly positive, and can hopefully be only the first in a worldwide attempt to rebuild a digital landscape that actually serves young people rather than exploits them.