Hours spent doomscrolling is terrible for brain development, says Jack Jordan, 17. Young people should be engaging with nature instead.
We spend hours and hours online but is it helping or hindering us? With the recent ban enforced by the Australian government meaning that anyone under the age of 16 cannot access social media, this topic is being fiercely debated by many experts.
According to the Pew Research Centre, the vast majority of teenagers use social media or online platforms, with usage rates close to universal among 13–17-year-olds.
On top of this, about 35% say they are online “almost constantly”.
This is terrible for the development of the teenage brain with it being scientifically proven that it shortens attention span. However, in my opinion the more shocking side of social media is the constant pressure placed upon young adults to act or look a certain way.
This way just isn’t realistic: this way is a lie produced by social media outlets to try and enforce a stereotype amongst young people. And this perfect way to look and act can never be achieved.
Social media outlets such as TikTok and Instagram show friendly people dancing or out with their friends. However, this is just a surface view of other people’s lives. Underneath are various problems, including cyberbullying.
The cyberbullying taking place on apps such as Snapchat have been shown to damage young adults’ self esteem and can lead to increased anxiety, isolation, and a decline in mental wellbeing. Furthermore, whatever is posted online is on social media forever and cannot be retracted.
There is a solution: the government could introduce stricter age limits and stronger regulations on social media platforms, alongside better education on online behaviour.
This could be enforced by regular checking of social media apps by parents and by age verification checks.
Some may argue that this would not work. I disagree. If people are willing to make a change, the days of harmful social media could be numbered.
Furthermore, I believe we should have time restriction on apps and restrictions on the number of videos we can watch. We should instead be encouraged to reconnect with nature.
This is ging to need a huge effort from everyone and in the end, I am certain that the cause will prevail because social media has a ticking sand timer before it becomes too dangerous and as a society we all need to stop that before it becomes too dangerous. There is a solution. Now it’s time to make it happen.
Sustainability is demanding and just not within reach.
The price of sustainability is extortionate, making it inaccessible to many. The push towards ethically sourced goods, organic produce, and eco-friendly alternatives often comes with significantly higher price tags.
Studies from consulting firm Kearney show these products can cost, on average, 75-80% more than conventional options. This alone blatantly exposes sustainability’s dirty little secret; its inaccessibility.
While some consumers are willing to pay this increase, framing it as ethical consumption, most cannot afford to.
These “responsible” choices overlook the reality of lower-income households that are forced to prioritise cost over conscience. A family struggling to make ends meet is far more likely to choose cheaper, processed alternatives over costly organic options, out of necessity.
Sustainability is no longer just about environmental responsibility; it requires financial flexibility that many do not have. The image of sustainable living is built around habits like cooking fresh meals, avoiding waste, and spending time comparing brands to find the most eco-conscious and ethical one.
These require time, energy, and commitment. For people working long hours, juggling multiple jobs, or managing families, this way of living does not align with their lives.
Convenience is the only practical option for some, yet toxic sustainability culture shames these people and their lives.
This judgment is ridiculous. Access shapes who gets to be sustainable at all, and most people do not have access to the infrastructure needed to live in a sustainable way. Whether that is public transport, recycling facilities, or stores that sell unpackaged goods. In these cases, “unsustainability” is the only option. Calling sustainability a moral obligation ignores the fact people are not all dealt the same cards.
This is not to argue against sustainability itself, but to rethink who is held responsible. Instead of placing pressure on people, there needs to be a shift towards systems driving large-scale environmental damage.
Companies, corporations, and industries play a far larger role in polluting, yet they are often held the least accountable. Unfair pressure is placed on people with financial barriers and limited resources.
Sustainability cannot be seen as a universal moral obligation when access to it is unequal. It is only possible when people are given the time, money, and resources to act on it.
Interested in submitting your own Student Voices article or video and automatically entering our Student Young Journalist of the Year Awards? Find out more here.
The Cavendish School - 7Y1 (7OGO)
I am twelve years old and I have a phone. I have YouTube. In long periods of free time I will put my phone down and draw or read instead of scrolling on YouTube. However, when I cook or do chores that require background attention but possibly not full, I will often scroll in between putting something in the oven, loading the washing machine etc. I find that I can’t read a book or draw in between these activities because I don’t have enough time to fully engage with them. So this is why I think students my age and older could be using social media. Does short term engagement with social media harm the brain like long term does?