California is on the verge of entirely banning anyone under the age of 16 from social media. Assembly Bill 1709 (AB 1709), which has already sailed through two legislative committees, would limit the ability to create or maintain an account on covered platforms to users ages 16 and older. No exceptions.

Previously, California legislators passed the Protecting Our Kids from Social Media Addiction Act (SB 976), which restricts minors from accessing algorithmically “addictive feeds.” Yet the harms have persisted. The National Institutes of Health has found that digital platforms introduce serious risks for young users, including compulsive use, cyberbullying, unrealistic beauty standards and exposure to substance-related content.

Freshman Emma Ebrahimian said she knows the impacts of the algorithm firsthand, which can make a five-minute break on Instagram turn into an hour-long scrolling session: “My screen time on social media is 14 hours a week, and I constantly end up comparing myself to influencers.”

Ebrahimian is not alone in her constant use of social media. According to Pew Research, approximately 95 percent of teens ages 13 to 17 use at least one of the various platforms available, with the majority reporting use of social media daily. 

Not all use causes harm though. Sophomore Maximilian Gonzalez said he utilizes TikTok to resell clothes and create short-form outfit styling videos while he also scrolls Instagram to get the latest sports news. “Without social media, I would lose a space for my creativity and wouldn’t be able to communicate with friends,” Gonzalez said.

That’s why banning social media entirely misses something important. For many teens, these platforms are a source of news, social interaction and self-confidence.

AB 1709 correctly acknowledges a problem, but fails to address the nuance needed to be a viable solution. Social media addiction is real, but a hard account ban ignores the fact that teens use these platforms to foster genuine communities through creative expression. 

It’s not all “doom-scrolling.”

SB 976’s restrictions are on the right path, but without enough measures to verify a user’s age, almost anyone could bypass the system. It’s not difficult to exploit a parental consent loophole or lie about a birthday to get on some social media platforms. But AB 1709 takes too big a leap forward. The bill requires Californian users to submit a government-issued ID or biometric information just to prove they’re adults, in turn threatening online anonymity and exposing sensitive personal data essentially blocking teens under 16 from social media completely.

Ebrahimian and Gonzalez both believe their parents should be able to make the call on how much social media they use. “Everyone uses social media differently, so there should be individual [restrictions] for each teen,” Ebrahimian said.

But parents are almost completely powerless. These platforms have entire teams of engineers optimizing feeds for engagement. A parent setting screen time limits on an iPhone won’t even the playing field. The algorithms are specifically designed to be more persuasive than any individual adult in a kid’s life.

Still, there has to be a middle ground–and California already has an outline of one.

SB 976’s algorithm restrictions point in the right direction. The problem was never that teens have accounts; it’s that platforms are engineered to keep them scrolling. In order to limit social media use while still supporting what youth need, the following steps must be taken:

• Strengthen age verification for addictive feed restrictions without exposing sensitive information;
• Require platforms to offer genuinely chronological, non-personalized feeds as a default for minors;
• Mandate transparency about how recommendation systems target young users.

These are actions with a clear target, unlike AB 1709.

Ebrahimian agreed that if her feeds were generic, her internet usage would be significantly reduced. “I think a big part of [the addiction] is that everything is personalized,” she said, “so I don’t think I’d have as much interest in social media if everything was generic.”

AB 1709 treats social media like a weapon when it has the potential to be a powerful tool. Censorship has never worked when the subject being banned is already woven into everyday life.

California should protect its youth. But protection isn’t a blanket ban. Protection is building a version of the internet that works for everyone–including the generation that grew up on it.