Australia recently enacted a landmark law setting the minimum age for social media accounts at 16. Following this move, a global conversation has erupted among parents, journalists, and policymakers about whether other nations should adopt similar measures. The debate centers on the best age threshold and whether to allow parental consent exceptions. The core recommendation is clear: set the age at 16 and offer no consent options.

Jon Haidt argues that 16 is the correct cutoff because puberty represents a critical period of brain development. During these years, adolescent brains are exceptionally malleable, making them vulnerable to the intense sculpting effects of heavy social media use. Research indicates that heavy use by boys at ages 14 and 15 most strongly predicts decreased life satisfaction. Most teens are still in puberty at 15, making that age too young for unrestricted digital access.

The article also rejects parental-consent exceptions, noting they recreate a 'collective action trap.' Without a uniform law, parents face immense pressure to allow accounts earlier, fearing their child will be left out. Simple, uniform laws are easier to enforce and effectively level the playing field for all families. This collective approach removes the daily struggle from individual households.