Young people's mental health in an online world

Sharon frames the panel by stressing that youth mental health in the digital world is a serious and long-standing concern. She presents it as a multidimensional issue that includes technology design, education and social and psychological factors rather than a narrow question of device use.

She says the panel will address 'the health of youth in the digital world' and specifically 'the mental health of youth in the digital world' . She then lists the subtopics as platforms, algorithms, education, social dynamics and psychology, showing that the issue extends well beyond simple screen use .

Alexandre Carette presents digital well-being as a universal policy issue affecting not just specialists or youth, but everyone who uses digital tools daily. He connects the discussion to public concerns such as access to the digital world, privacy and intimate life, and places it within the UN policy context.

He states that the issue 'concerns everybody' including young people, experts and all daily users of digital tools . He also refers to Antonio Guterres's remarks about access to the digital world and related problems, especially intimacy, and says this makes it a 'fundamental question' at the UN and in Geneva .

Alexandre argues that digital policy should not be made over the heads of young people. He warns that decisions imposed in the name of protection can remove access to resources without first asking young people what they need or how they experience digital spaces.

When discussing social media restrictions, he criticises decisions 'taken without considering young people' and says authorities are 'just imposing them' rather than asking young people what they need and how they see the issue . He adds that such decisions may cut access to resources that are unevenly available across countries, including psychology and social support .

Alexandre argues that policymakers should not delay action until science proves direct causation between technology and mental health harms. Instead, he proposes regulating opaque economic and algorithmic systems that are already known to be non-transparent and capable of influencing everyone, including adults.

He says science currently shows correlation rather than causality, and that waiting for full proof leaves policymakers blocked . He argues that what is offered online is 'not loyal' and 'not transparent', so regulation should already require platforms to change their economic and algorithmic models . He further notes that algorithms influence adults too and gives Meta and the Dutch approach as examples of attempts to push platforms back towards earlier, less algorithmically driven formats .

Niels Weber argues that screen time by itself provides very limited insight into youth well-being. He says assessment should focus on what young people are doing online and offline and place digital use within a broader understanding of overall mental health.

He says that when people talk about screen time, it is usually to impose limits, but that this should not be the main focus because screen time gives only 'a little useful and coherent information' . He adds that the key question is what young people do on screens and outside them, and that this is what should be integrated into the evaluation of mental health in a broader, global sense .

Niels argues that digital practices are subjective and vary across groups of young people, so they cannot be judged by universal time-based rules. He says the right approach is to understand what needs young people are trying to meet and whether their use is associated with distress or difficulty.

He explains that youth practices are individualised and that different groups seek different things in applications, social media and games . He criticises the common tendency to blame the next generation and to define digital problems through screen-time recommendations, saying there are no clinical criteria that make screen time itself problematic . He says the focus should be on developmental needs and later notes that clinical work uses the concept of suffering to determine whether use has become problematic .

Niels rejects the routine use of the word addiction for most digital overuse. He argues that the more accurate issue is retention-focused platform design, and that clinicians should instead look for signs of suffering rather than forcing digital behaviour into addiction models borrowed from substance abuse.

He explicitly says 'we need to stop using this term' and 'we're not talking about addictions', while acknowledging that problems do still exist and must be named properly . He explains that platforms are built to prolong use through retention mechanics but that this does not automatically generate addiction . He adds that young brains may struggle to stop, and that in clinical research the relevant criterion is suffering, such as distress after prolonged scrolling, including distress experienced by parents .

Niels says parents should watch for red flags such as school refusal, solitude and notable behavioural shifts. However, he cautions that these signs often reflect underlying life problems, with screen use functioning as a coping response rather than the original cause.

He says that in clinical practice the concerns that bring families in often involve school-related issues and solitude . He stresses that the whole ecosystem matters and that it is reductive to assume social media alone creates the problem . He gives examples such as separation, loss, school difficulties and romantic difficulties, arguing that increased phone use may be a response to those struggles rather than the reason for them .

Niels argues that problematic digital use cannot be understood only as an individual failing. He places part of the responsibility on platform design, which is intentionally built to keep users engaged for longer, especially affecting younger users whose ability to self-regulate is still developing.

He agrees that many platforms are 'built today in a way to prolong the use' and says the issue lies in 'design' and 'mechanics of retention' that make activity last longer than expected . He adds that because the brains of young people are not yet fully mature, they may find it harder to stop and move to another activity .

Niels proposes a practical parenting approach that shifts attention away from counting minutes and towards checking whether a child is healthy, and generally doing well. The aim is to reduce anxiety by evaluating digital use through wider indicators of well-being instead of using arbitrary hourly limits.

He suggests that instead of saying a child gets only one hour of screen time, parents should define what reassures them that the child is okay and build a 'checklist' around that . He adds that even if a child spends two hours on screens, the real issue is whether the broader conditions are satisfactory and whether parents can stop worrying about the screen time itself .

Tatiana argues that Belgium's media education framework demonstrates the limits of screen-time-centred thinking. She says policy and research should instead examine how young people actually use digital media and what positive or negative experiences result from that use.

She explains that francophone Belgium has a legal basis for media education that obliges the government to support educational practices across the lifespan . She adds that surveys of young people's digital practices help inform government, and that these studies show young people can benefit from positive experiences online, while a sole focus on imposed screen-time limits causes policymakers to miss what young people are actually doing online .

Tatiana distinguishes between rare clinically recognised gaming disorder and the broader public tendency to label digital use as addiction. She argues that media education should instead focus on risk reduction and on spotting more serious, durable signs of dysfunction.

She says WHO recognises gaming disorder and that it concerns only around 3%, while clarifying that this is not the same as talking broadly about addiction . She explains that media education's role is to 'leverage the risk', comparing it to learning the rules of driving a car . She also says that problematic situations can be identified through 'sustainable loss of control' and 'social retreat for several months' .

Tatiana sees media education as a long-term, cross-cutting educational effort rather than a one-off intervention. She emphasises support for parents and the need to replace panic and blame with dialogue, practical advice and accompaniment.

She says media education requires 'a long-term role' with information tools and workshops, and explicitly describes it as a 'transversal approach' . She adds that this approach should anticipate and accompany the public, especially parents, by giving them spaces for dialogue and advice so they stop demonising digital media and no longer feel completely helpless or solely responsible .

Tatiana argues that effective media education must begin with the real media habits of young people. From there, educators can help them recognise commercial influence, understand how content creators shape opinion and build critical thinking about information sources.

She says one approach is to question young people about what they like, do and consume in everyday life so they reflect on their own practices . She points to the issue of news influencers and content creators in Belgium and France, warning that young people may follow them without recognising publicity or developing critical thinking . She explains that educators can use concrete publications and ask how young people get informed, why they trust a given influencer and how content is constructed, insisting that media education must start from personal uses .

Tatiana criticises outright prohibitions as an overly blunt response to digital challenges. She suggests that such bans can overshadow the slower but more meaningful work of media education and fail to address how young people actually live and learn with digital tools.

She gives the example of francophone Belgium, where after a government shift smartphones were completely forbidden at schools, calling it something of a revolution . She adds that social media may also be forbidden, citing Australia and France, and says this is the kind of model her council is trying to resist . She contrasts this with efforts to build structural, transversal media education through specialist coordination, teaching materials and activities inside and outside schools .

Daniella argues that because young people are among the most internet users, they are especially exposed to online harms. She also says the risk is amplified by platform and algorithm design that keeps users engaged for longer and can push them towards unhealthy patterns of use.

She states that young people are 'the most users of the Internet' and therefore more often on the receiving end of its harms . She notes that young people use the internet for education, friendship and research, but says the platforms they use are 'not really built in a safe way', especially when algorithms are considered . She adds that systems are built to keep young people engaged for long hours and links this to how big tech designs technologies to cause or intensify addictive-like use .

Daniella argues that responses to youth digital harms should be collaborative rather than top-down. She says young people themselves must be included in designing solutions alongside parents, schools, governments and other actors so that support actually reflects their lived challenges.

She says that solutions should return to a more traditional collaborative model in which parents, schools, government and other stakeholders co-create remedies that young people can participate in . She further stresses that it is not a one-sided issue, that adults must speak to young people, understand their challenges and create safe spaces for them to co-create solutions with the relevant actors .

Daniella warns that young people may turn to AI systems for companionship because of loneliness, but these tools are not human and should not replace professional care. She argues that providers have a duty to redirect users dealing with depression or anxiety to qualified humans and to preserve human oversight.

She identifies loneliness as one reason young people may engage with AI companions for friendship . She says awareness is needed so users understand that AI 'doesn't have human emotions' . She then argues that when conversations involve depression or anxiety, providers should divert them to actual professionals and ensure that AI chatbots do not assume the role of a professional, making 'the human in the loop' essential .

Daniella stresses that the internet is not only a source of risk but also an important source of opportunity and empowerment for young people. She therefore argues for balanced policy that protects young users without cutting them off from the educational, economic and civic benefits of digital access.

She says technology is powerful enough to be leveraged not just for posting content but also for creating awareness about harms and for youth initiatives around education and advocacy, including on AI and loneliness . Later, in arguing against bans, she gives her own examples of using the internet to find opportunities, do research, support her business, find clients and engage with people .

Daniella rejects social media bans as a superficial response that fails to address underlying problems. She advocates instead for governance frameworks that include youth and stakeholders and that assess risks to children's rights directly within AI and digital policy.

She says plainly that 'banning social media or even access to internet is not the right approach because it doesn't really solve the root of the problem' . She reports that young delegates in a recent UN Graduate Study Program research project also agreed that banning social media was not the right approach . She proposes putting in place stronger frameworks, citing a recently launched scientific panel report discussed at the Global Dialogue on AI Governance that recommends fundamental human rights impact assessments for children in AI governance strategies . She concludes that policy should involve young people, stakeholders, the tech industry and government organisations rather than pursue total bans .

Daniella explains that in Ghana, discussions of mental health are still influenced by cultural hesitation and are not fully mainstream. At the same time, she says younger people are using digital platforms to normalise the conversation, spread awareness and connect people to professional support.

She says the issue is global but that in Ghana cultural context affects how mental health and well-being are discussed, and that it is 'not really in the mainstream' for young people to speak openly about their mental health . She then says that younger generations are using digital tools to create more awareness and to let people know they can reach experts or psychologists when they face challenges on technological platforms .

The audience member argues that some groups, especially neurodivergent young people, face particular digital risks that are not well addressed by standard parent- or school-centred responses. They suggest accompaniment approaches using peers or other non-authority groups who may be better placed to support and guide young people.

The speaker highlights neurodivergent young people as a population especially affected by screens and social media, and also mentions bullying and the fact that digital media are no longer shared in the same way as television was . They refer to a conference chaired by Cyprus and to alternatives being developed through organisations and work linked to the European Commission, where young adults accompany learning instead of relying only on forbidding use . They add that this creates a different relationship from the authority of schools, teachers or parents because it brings in 'another population' as a support base .

The audience member raises a policy and evidence challenge: authorities often say there is insufficient high-level evidence, including from WHO, about the mental health impact of technology. At the same time, they ask how platforms can be made to take meaningful responsibility for harms associated with their services.

A representative from the Colombia regulator says that in their context people often argue there is not enough evidence from the World Health Organization about technology's impact on mental health . The same speaker asks whether there is a study on the issue and directly raises the question of what can be done to make platforms 'take real responsibility' for related harms .