This article was first published by The Hill Times.
Bans are the flavour of the moment. Australia’s ban on social media accounts for under-16s came into effect at the start of 2026, and more than 40 other countries around the world are following suit. There are understandable reasons and pressures: public opinion seems favourable; a ban looks like decisive policy; platforms seem to accept this type of regulation.
Released on June 10, Canada’s Safe Social Media Act (C-34) tries to propose a more nuanced way forward. Bill C-34 does include the stick of banning children under 16 years old, but it also includes the carrot of a moratorium for platforms that embed age-appropriate design. While C-34 addresses the online environment more broadly, incorporates GenAI, and establishes a regulator, its approach to social media for children has generated the most debate. In an ideal world, however, that approach might offer the most room for a national discussion about what social media could and should become in Canada.
Experts have criticized the general approach of age-related bans from multiple perspectives. Some legal experts, like Michael Geist, worry that it relies too much on technical fixes like age verification apps that bring significant privacy concerns and can be easily circumvented. Other European researchers suggest that bans do not account for how some children use social media for connection and comfort. Psychologists caution that “we don’t know how social media bans will affect youth, but we’re doing it anyway.” Lastly, other experts in youth and digital literacy like Sara Grimes note that countries have not followed Article 12 of the United Nations Convention for the Child which mandates consulting children on laws that affect them.
Blanket bans also have the issue of efficacy. Researchers who surveyed around 400 children in Australia found that, despite the restrictions, over 85 per cent were still using social media platforms. Researchers note that a ban does little to fix the underlying systemic design features that may be problematic.
Canada’s approach tries to offer another way forward. Instead of a blanket ban, platforms can implement safeguards for children who can then keep access to those platforms. A platform can apply for and receive an exemption from the ban if the newly created digital safety commission “is satisfied that the operator provides adequate safeguards in the regulated social media service for the protection of children.” (Full disclosure: I served on the expert advisory group on online safety for the Heritage ministry on issues related to the bill, but the group had no role in drafting the C-34).
At least in principle, this exemption is meant to encourage platforms to take a more proactive approach and implement safety by design. This follows recommendations built on assessments of global best practices. The SickKids Child Health Policy Accelerator in Ontario surveyed the global landscape and concluded that Canada should “prioritize a design-based approach to online safety legislation” that centres children and is enforceable by law.
While there is comparatively little evidence about how bans affect young people, there is more evidence about how best to place children’s rights at the centre of platform design. For example, in 2023, the United Kingdom Digital Futures for Children Centre created 11 principles for Child Rights by Design, including consulting children, privacy and safety by design, and developing products and services that “enable children’s learning, imagination, play, and belonging.”
The Safe Social Media Act does not list the safeguards that platforms should implement to receive an exemption from the ban. This is understandable, as platform features evolve swiftly over time. That said, it also offers an opportunity to develop a national, inclusive conversation about what safeguards Canadians—and especially Canadian children—would like to see.
These conversations might at first appear technical, centring around removing infinite scrolling, direct messages from strangers, or other features that may be addictive or exploitative. But seen from another perspective, they get at the heart of these platforms’ purpose. Are they built for addictive engagement? Or could they be designed differently for productive debate, play, and exploration?
Expert voices will matter in these conversations about safeguards. So, too, can and should citizens and children. It will take up to 18 months to create the new regulator, the Digital Safety and Data Protection Commission of Canada. That time provides an opportunity to follow Peter MacLeod and Richard Johnson’s suggestion to unleash the power of the public in determining the shape of their institutions. MacLeod and Johnson detail many other countries’ innovative approaches to include citizens.
Rather than dismissing these discussions as dull and technocratic, Canadians are likely to be highly engaged in debates over children’s online future. The Centre for Media, Technology, and Democracy already ran a Gen(Z) AI project that convened 100 young Canadians to deliberate on the future of artificial intelligence, for example. Parents’ groups like Unplugged Canada are tremendously active on issues around social media and smartphones. These conversations could start with safeguards, but expand to evaluate the government’s AI literacy strategy in schools or British Columbia’s plans to introduce chatbot accounts into the classroom for students aged 13 and over. I suspect many Canadians have innovative, nuanced, and thoughtful ideas about what safeguards could make platforms safer by design.
Some researchers suggest that bans may fall into the trap of “techno-legal solutionism,” where legislators believe “that complex social problems can be solved through legally mandated technical fixes.” In the end, making platforms safer for children ideally makes them safer for everyone. Rather than let the conversation about safeguards descend into a checklist exercise, there is a chance to engage Canadian adults and children in the much more fundamental question: not just how to make platforms safer, but what we actually want them to be.
