The phones are smart--we humans, not so much

Canada is one of quite a number of countries now trying to decide whether or not to follow Australia's lead in banning or placing significant restrictions on the use of social media by those under 16. Globe and Mail columnist Marsha Lederman is not alone in her criticisms of the Australian law; many have concluded that it is ineffective. The Globe published several letters in response; the letter I sent appeared (in slightly edited form) in the June 15 issue:

Re “Ban social media for young people? Good luck” (June 10): Cautioning against following Australia’s lead, Marsha Lederman cites a study suggesting that “only about one-quarter of 14- and 15-year-olds have stopped using banned platforms.” Other studies suggest that 61% of young people have not altered their social media routines since the law came into effect a few months ago.

Should we therefore conclude that social media bans for under-16s should be abandoned? Not at all. If one-quarter have stopped using banned platforms, that already constitutes at least a partial success.

When mandatory seat belt use was introduced in the 1970s and 1980s, compliance in many jurisdictions remained spotty for some time. In New York State in 1986, two years after the state had made seat belts mandatory, the compliance rate was just 46%. Happily, the state did not conclude that the law was a failure and abandon it. Like other jurisdictions, they kept at it—and now compliance rates everywhere are at 90% or above. Let’s take a similar approach in this case.

An interesting detail of the New York State example is the fact that things did not follow a straight line. In the first year after seat belt use became mandatory more than 50% of drivers followed the new law; it was in the second year that compliance dropped to 46%. And there were more ups and downs before compliance rates reached 90%. (The rate is now 94%.)

A recent issue of The Economist ("Going Old School," May 9th) drew my attention to an October 2025 study of school cell-phone bans in Florida--a study providing further evidence that not everything follows a straight line. David Figlio and colleagues published the results of this study in Eduation Next; in the large school district they studied, which had imposed a "bell-to-bell" ban in school snart phone use, the ban itself was effective with no lag (among high school students, daily cellphone visits fell by more than 80 percent after the ban was imposed). What didn't follow a straight line was suspensions imposed against those flouting school rules; suspensions jumped by 25 percent in the year immediately after the ban was imposed--but then returned to pre-ban levels the following year. The study also found that student performance both on reading and on math tests improved after the ban was imposed.

Examples of non-addictive devices.