Social SciencesFreePrintable

Social Media Bans Debate

A free social sciences worksheet ready for your classroom. Open in Kuraplan to grab the print-ready PDF, customize it for your students, or generate a fresh version in seconds.

Download now

Name:Date:

Social Media Bans Debate

Read the scenario and evidence, then explore both sides of the debate. Use reasons and evidence to support your answers. For opinion questions, the answers give examples; other well-reasoned responses are also valid.

The scenario

A national citizens’ panel is discussing whether social media platforms should be unavailable to people under 16. Supporters say a restriction could reduce exposure to harmful content, cyberbullying and pressure to stay online. They also argue that younger users may have less experience protecting personal information. Opponents say social media helps young people keep in touch, find supportive communities and share ideas. They worry that a ban could limit young people’s voice or be easy to get around. Some suggest alternatives, such as stronger privacy settings, better moderation, media-literacy education and help for families. The panel must weigh safety, rights, evidence and practical enforcement before making a recommendation.

What respondents value

Number of respondents

Keeping in touch with friends and family

Finding helpful communities or information

Sharing creative work and ideas

Other reasons

Understand the debate

A civic decision should consider different viewpoints, the people affected, evidence, rights and how a rule could work in practice.

1.Which statement is a possible reason to support a restriction for under-16s?

It could reduce young people’s exposure to harmful content or cyberbullying.
It would guarantee that no young person ever experiences online harm.
It would give every young person more ways to share ideas online.
It would mean online services no longer need privacy protections.

2.Which is a possible concern about an under-16 social media restriction?

Some young people could lose useful connections or supportive communities.
It would automatically teach everyone how to check online information.
It would make all personal information public.
It would guarantee that platforms moderate content fairly.

3.In the survey, how many respondents said keeping in touch was what they valued most? What does that result tell the panel—and what does it not prove?

4.The survey asked what young people value, not whether they support a ban. Explain why this makes it limited evidence for deciding whether a ban is a good idea.

5.Match each civic consideration to the question it helps the panel ask.

Safety
Rights and participation
Practical enforcement

Could young people lose ways to communicate or express ideas?
Could the proposal reduce exposure to harm?
How could platforms apply the rule, and could it be avoided?

6.A panellist says, “A ban will solve cyberbullying.” Is this a strong claim based on the scenario? Explain what is missing.

7.Complete the sentence: A responsible digital citizen helps protect their own and others’ and treats people online.

8.Suggest one alternative to a full ban that could help address online harms. Explain how it might help and name one limitation.

9.Choose a position: support an under-16 restriction, oppose it, or support a different approach. Give one reason, respond fairly to a counter-argument, and name one piece of evidence you would want before the panel decides.