Björn Jeffery

This analysis was first published in SvD Näringsliv, in Swedish, on June 2nd, 2026. This piece was translated from Swedish by Claude. Some phrasing may differ from a human translation.

Is social media harmful to young people? Sweden’s investigators have delivered a much-anticipated answer. Anything other than the conclusion they reached would have been a shock – given how the assignment was framed. But the most important question remains unanswered.

Ask a question, get an answer. The government version of that might be: commission an inquiry, get an inquiry.

When Minister for Social Affairs Jakob Forssmed appointed a special investigator last fall to figure out how an age limit on social media could be implemented in Sweden, the assignment was crystal clear:

“Harmful content and addictive algorithms must be pushed back to strengthen the protection of children’s health, safety, and wellbeing. We are now investigating how a strict age limit on social media can be designed in Sweden.”

The question of whether social media is actually dangerous was set aside in favor of how an age limit could be implemented. But that we still got no answers on in the interim report released Tuesday.

In an op-ed in SvD, the investigators outline their findings. The legal conditions for a Swedish age limit on social media have been reviewed, and the conclusion is that it’s feasible. Legally speaking. A limit of 15 years is proposed. Snapchat, Instagram, Facebook, TikTok, and YouTube are among the platforms that would be covered.

Beyond that, the investigators were also asked to consider whether this is something that should be introduced at all. That’s a considerably bigger question. And, unsurprisingly, they concluded that the proposal both can and should be implemented.

Any other answer – given how the question was framed from the start – would have been a shock.

Public opinion on this issue is also entirely one-sided right now. As the investigators themselves note, similar proposals are already finalized in several European countries, and there are long lists of ongoing inquiries of the same kind elsewhere. Out in front is Australia, which in December 2025 became the first country in the world to introduce a ban on social media for children.

Bucking that trend would have required enormous courage. And that’s exactly why it’s particularly interesting to look at the reasoning for why this is such a good idea – beyond the fact that many other countries seem to think the same. It’s also worth examining how things have played out in Australia so far, since they’re the only country that has actually implemented such an age limit.

Let’s start with the land down under. In March, a report from the Australian government looked at exactly this. It found that around 5 million social media accounts have been removed. That sounds like a lot. But the report acknowledges that the figure doesn’t correspond to the number of young people who have lost access to social media, since the same person can have multiple accounts. And more importantly – seven in ten children still had social media accounts despite the law.

One of the goals of the age limit was to reduce bullying and harmful behavior through these channels. The Australian report shows, however, that the number of reports has not decreased since the ban was introduced. It’s still early – the law is barely six months old – but so far, the problems appear to persist.

In their op-ed, the investigators write that “the research on children’s wellbeing and their use of social media [is] clear.”

Not all researchers would agree with that claim. Developmental psychologist Candice Odgers at the University of California, Irvine, is one of them.

She has studied young people’s use of smartphones since 2008 and argues that research – including a meta-study examining 226 studies over 12 years – cannot demonstrate any connection between social media use and wellbeing at all. Research from Amy Orben and Andrew Przybylski at Oxford University shows similar results. We can see that many young people are struggling, suffering from anxiety and depression. But that social media is to blame is far less clear.

There is, of course, research pointing in the opposite direction too. And that seems to be what Minister Forssmed and the investigators have chosen to focus on. That’s a valid choice – but to say the research is “clear” is a significant oversimplification.

The same thing happened when Sweden’s Public Health Agency issued screen-time recommendations. What was proposed had weak backing in the very research evidence they themselves provided.

One of the biggest questions – even with an age limit in place – is how this would work in practice. How do you even verify users’ ages accurately? The investigators also raise their own concerns about the need to preserve anonymity on social media. But these questions are once again left unanswered. “The inquiry will in its next phase continue to follow that work closely,” the report says, referring to the EU’s work on digital age verification.

Protecting young people is a noble mission that most people can get behind. And few today believe that unregulated tech companies would prioritize young people’s wellbeing. The work is important and affects almost everyone in Sweden.

The real question is how we as a society actually get this right. How we improve young people’s wellbeing without creating other, unintended problems. Or for that matter – whether we can even identify an approach that genuinely works.

This inquiry gave us – once again, and despite good intentions – very few answers on how to do that.