07/08/2026
A new OECD paper, Growing Up in the Social Media Age, provides solid data on a debate that often relies on stories and fears. Using PISA 2022 data from tens of thousands of 15-year-olds, it presents one of the clearest insights into how deeply social media is integrated into adolescence, and what that means for learning, wellbeing, and the policies being created to address it.
The scale is striking
The average 15-year-old in the OECD spends nearly 35 hours a week on social media, which is more time than they dedicate to homework and regular school lessons combined. This average hides real differences: teens in Chile report spending over 45 hours a week, while their peers in Japan report less than 26. Girls spend noticeably more time than boys (37 versus 32 hours weekly), mainly due to browsing, while boys focus more on gaming.
Moderation, not abstinence, seems to be the sweet spot.
Perhaps the report’s most relevant finding is what researchers call the “Goldilocks” pattern. Students who use social media moderately, about one to three hours a day, tend to perform better than both non-users and heavy users on math, reading, and creative-thinking assessments. Performance drops sharply for students who spend more than three hours a day. Disadvantaged students seem less affected by heavy use than their more privileged peers, though the reasons for this difference are unclear.
Bans are popular, yet their overall effectiveness is limited.
School phone restrictions have become widespread. About a third of OECD students now attend schools with some form of ban. However, the report finds these bans are not strongly linked to how much time students actually spend on social media. Enforcement is inconsistent; nearly a third of students in “banned” schools report using their phones several times a day. Meanwhile, new laws are emerging – from Australia’s under-16 minimum age framework to proposals in France and the UK, along with a growing variety of US state legislation – that test different regulatory approaches, including age limits, algorithmic curfews, and parental consent.
The Real Fight Is Over Who Writes the Rules
The report honestly states that the science is not settled. Correlation does not imply causation, self-reported screen time is often unreliable, and researchers differ significantly on how much the narrative “social media harms teens” holds under close examination. Yet lawmakers are acting quickly, often ahead of the evidence, and the report highlights real tensions: content-based restrictions can border on censorship, age-verification requirements raise serious privacy concerns, and rules meant to protect children can unintentionally strengthen the market power of the largest platforms best able to comply.
This is exactly where civil society needs to step in. Good digital policy should not force a choice between protecting kids and upholding rights, freedom of expression, privacy, fair competition, and child wellbeing; all these issues deserve consideration when drafting laws. Decisions also should not be made behind closed doors among governments and platforms with the largest lobbying budgets. As more countries follow Australia’s example and impose age limits, curfews, or algorithmic restrictions, the debates over how to regulate – rather than just whether to do so – will impact young people’s digital lives for years to come. These debates deserve transparency, evidence, and input from voices beyond industry lobbyists.
The full OECD paper is available here.