(Image Credit: Bigtunaonline / Dreamstime.com)
The Creative Edge

PEARCE: When attention should not be for sale

Sep 15, 2026 | 6:00 AM

SLEEP IS DISRUPTED. Concentration is fragmented. Boredom disappears. Social comparison becomes constant. Even relationships are shaped through visibility and performance.

Because of this, governments are now beginning to respond.

In Canada, Bill C-34 — the Safe Social Media Act — has been introduced to Parliament to strengthen protections for children online. It remains in the House of Commons and is still moving through the legislative process.

In Australia, lawmakers have passed legislation restricting social media access for children under 16 – one of the first national efforts to directly limit platform access based on age. This reflects a growing international recognition that current systems may not be appropriate for childhood.

And it is not difficult to understand why this debate is accelerating.

Cases such as Amanda Todd and Rehtaeh Parsons remain painful reminders in Canada of how online harassment and exposure can intersect with adolescent vulnerability. These are not abstract stories – they are part of why policy is now changing.

At the same time, research consistently finds associations between social media use and increased risks of sleep disruption, anxiety symptoms, attention difficulties and declining adolescent mental health. Neuroscience also shows that adolescents are especially sensitive to social feedback and reward-based learning – the same mechanisms these platforms are designed to activate.

This raises a serious question:

If we already know these environments carry measurable risks for developing minds, why are we still treating access as the default?

This is why I believe we need to seriously consider something we have been avoiding:

Age-based restrictions on social media – not as punishment, but as protection.

We already accept that children should not have unrestricted access to alcohol, cigarettes or gambling. Not because adults cannot use them, but because we recognize developmental vulnerability.

Social media now belongs in that same conversation.

Not because it is identical.

But because the level of exposure, design intensity and behavioural impact has reached a point where “personal choice” is no longer the full picture.

This is not an argument for fear.

It is an argument for boundaries.

Because childhood is not a market.

And attention should not be treated as something children are expected to manage alone.

The question is no longer whether social media is influencing children.

It is whether we are willing to set limits on systems that were never designed with them in mind.

——

Editor’s Note: This opinion piece reflects the views of its author, and does not necessarily represent the views of CFJC Today or Pattison Media.