I recently came across a study by Castelo et al. (2025), which confirmed all my observations in clinical practice. That being repeatedly interrupted by your phone seeking your attention with pings or buzzes is remarkably bad for your mental health. Let’s start by saying that there isn’t a single recognised definition of problematic use, so I will take a general world wide definition of problematic as behaviour that::
- Interferes with daily life, sleep, work or study
- Causes conflict with others
- reflects loss of control or an inability to cut back
- Resembles behavioural addiction symptoms, such as withdrawal, tolerance, salience, and conflict
A common research threshold in the literature is using social media for more than 3 hours per day is associated with poorer mental health (e.g., higher anxiety and depression). However, time alone is not a clinical diagnosis; contexts and impacts matter more.
Why is it crucial to ban smartphone use for children
When people were asked to only use their phones for calls and chats but to switch off internet access they saw statistically significant improvements; anxiety states and depressive states diminished, well-being increased and most important the ability to focus improved significantly, they stopped being distracted and could bring sustained attention to whatever they want to attend to.
I have seen this repeatedly in many clients from diverse backgrounds; that addictive use of the smartphone brings a state of fragmentation, a state where people become disconnected from other people, their own bodies, their own thoughts, and their surroundings, and this is detrimental to human health both physical as well as mental.
What can parents do about it?
I am so concerned for young people whose brains are still developing. I want to urge parents and everyone caring for children under 18 to back the ban on smartphones as much as they possibly can. Adults at least can inform themselves and will hopefully make the right choice, but children are far too vulnerable to social pressure and lack understanding about what is truly in their best interests in the long term.
A landmark case in the US started on Monday February 9th 2026
LOS ANGELES, Feb 9 (Reuters) – Meta Platforms and YouTube deliberately designed products they knew would addict children, a lawyer for a woman suing the two companies told jurors in California on Monday at a trial that will test whether Big Tech platforms can be held liable for their app design.
The 20-year-old woman identified as Kaley G.M. in court is suing Facebook and Instagram parent company Meta Platforms (META.O), opens new tab and Alphabet’s (GOOGL.O), opens new tab Google, which owns YouTube.
Why is this case so important?
This case marks the beginning of a legal pushback against the big tech corporations that are damaging young people and I would argue, democratic institutions, all over the world because of a lack of accountability, a lack of legal oversight, a lack of a moral compass and the blatant disregard for human rights and the duty of governments to protect their citizens from corporate exploitation and abuse; all in the name of maximising profits.
Why is the rise and rise of big tech so dangerous?
The capture of our attention by excessive use of social media and its wild lack of regulation and safeguards is a threat to our intelligence and our broader well being. Algorithms that foster polarisation and maximise discontent and hatred for expert and reasoned debate, in favour of bland de-contextualised sound bites, are eroding notions of civility, respect for difference and tolerance.
Capitalism needs a radical overhaul, it is now running out of control and the vast mass of the world’s population will be very much poorer for it. The gap between the ultra rich and the rest of humanity will widen to the point that social collapse is the most likely future. No-one wins in such a chaotic world. It’s high time for governments to prioritise protecting their citizens from social media corporations, especially their children. No fair minded person could object to this.
Population Prevalence of Addiction to Social Media by Age Group & Gender (UK, Europe, USA, Asia)
| Addiction Type | Age Group | UK | Europe | USA | Asia | Gender Pattern | Key Sources |
| Social Media / Internet Addiction | Adolescents (11–17) | ~11% problematic use | ~11% problematic use | ~9–14% problematic use | 10–23% (varies widely) | Girls ≥ Boys for social media; Boys > Girls for gaming-internet | WHO HBSC survey; global meta-analyses |
| Young Adults (18–25) | ~15–25% self-reported addiction-like use | ~14–23% | ~18–40% self-reported | ~22–31% | Females slightly higher for social platforms | Global systematic reviews |
| Adults (25+) | ~5–15% | ~5–14% | ~10–26% | ~12–27% | Gender gap narrows with age | Meta-analysis of problematic use |
Of course as with all of the social sciences, there are many factors which distort survey reports and affect their validity, so the above table should be understood as approximate.
However the information has been gathered in good faith by the World Health Organisation (WHO) and can be taken seriously and the ranges in the percentages takes account of the difficulties in gathering this sort of data. Clearly young adults (18-25) are at the most risk for addiction to social media, especially females and the numbers across Asia are particularly alarming.
Banning social media use for children under 18 means that it does not become a normalised part of their mental, emotional and social development and so one would expect that as young adults they would be less at risk than this current generation.