Australia has become the first country to ban children under 16 from using social media platforms, a milestone in the history of technology governance. For Gen Z, a social media and phone-based childhood has given rise to a host of issues that endanger their mental health and well-being: a silent “digital pandemic.”
The motivating factors behind the Australian ban align with the framework of “transmission mechanisms” I put forward in a recent paper published in the academic journal Psychiatry and Clinical Neurosciences. Artificial intelligence (AI) algorithms trigger and amplify negative emotions such as anger, fear or jealousy in the modern attention economy, trapping young people in a bubble that perpetuates increased anxiety, depression and social polarization. Malicious users are able to create anonymous profiles to engage in cyberbullying, the promotion of extremist ideologies or even grooming — this poses a threat of a new form of harm.
The addictiveness of screens disrupts sleep, and often comes at the cost of exercise and face-to-face social interaction, impacting young people’s social-emotional learning and development of psychological resilience. Suicide is the second-leading cause of death for adolescents in Taiwan, yet only 20 percent of those suffering from anxiety or depression seek help — and the digital pandemic is undoubtedly making things worse.
Australia’s ban is an example of preventive governance — born not out of moral panic, but research — and is designed to address risks at their source. Taiwan faces a similar situation, yet actions to address the crises, which include Internet addiction, cyberbullying and AI-enabled face-swap porn, often stop at the level of public education and awareness. Policies that actually target these issues are disjointed, appearing, for example, in the Child and Juvenile Welfare and Rights Protection Act (兒童及少年福利與權益保障法) or the now-mothballed 2022 draft digital intermediary services act.
Our defense should have four central pillars. First, to regulate and enforce transparency requirements for algorithms while improving age-verification mechanisms for the underaged. Second, to strengthen filters and content guidelines to address issues of self-harm and mental health. Third, boost well-being and psychological resilience education, and provide support for digital parenting. Fourth, establish a network of support for the social media age as crisis intervention and suicide prevention measures, while increasing the number of counselors available to young people and the accessibility of anonymous online support services.
We must think transformatively and structurally rather than only in terms of bans and limits within existing frameworks. The Taiwanese Society of Psychiatry is currently rolling out its plan for the “digital transformation of psychiatry,” which includes digital screening, diagnostics and treatment, as well as ethics education measures.
Accessing help online and remotely can help with reducing stigma and increasing accessibility; it is already the norm in the US, but is still subject to legal restrictions in Taiwan.
The Ministry of Health and Welfare and the Legislative Yuan should consider the US’ model and moderately relax restrictions to allow our mental healthcare systems to evolve with the world around us — particularly for the sake of young people.
Technology is a double-edged sword. Australia’s social media ban might be controversial, but it has certainly started the global discussion. The UK and Europe, which already have strong regulations, will be watching closely, while Denmark and Malaysia have already announced plans to follow Australia’s example.
Taiwan must keep up with the times and bring together the government, technology sector, experts, parents and caregivers to accelerate a digital transformation to address the youth mental health crisis. Let us create a safe and positive digital future for the next generation where technology can be a positive force for our well-being, rather than a source of psychological ills.
Su Kuan-Pin is a professor of psychiatry at China Medical University’s College of Medicine, the deputy superintendent of An-nan Hospital and a member of the Presidential Office’s Healthy Taiwan Promotion Committee.
Translated by Gilda Knox Streader
The conflict in the Middle East has been disrupting financial markets, raising concerns about rising inflationary pressures and global economic growth. One market that some investors are particularly worried about has not been heavily covered in the news: the private credit market. Even before the joint US-Israeli attacks on Iran on Feb. 28, global capital markets had faced growing structural pressure — the deteriorating funding conditions in the private credit market. The private credit market is where companies borrow funds directly from nonbank financial institutions such as asset management companies, insurance companies and private lending platforms. Its popularity has risen since
The Donald Trump administration’s approach to China broadly, and to cross-Strait relations in particular, remains a conundrum. The 2025 US National Security Strategy prioritized the defense of Taiwan in a way that surprised some observers of the Trump administration: “Deterring a conflict over Taiwan, ideally by preserving military overmatch, is a priority.” Two months later, Taiwan went entirely unmentioned in the US National Defense Strategy, as did military overmatch vis-a-vis China, giving renewed cause for concern. How to interpret these varying statements remains an open question. In both documents, the Indo-Pacific is listed as a second priority behind homeland defense and
Every analyst watching Iran’s succession crisis is asking who would replace supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Yet, the real question is whether China has learned enough from the Persian Gulf to survive a war over Taiwan. Beijing purchases roughly 90 percent of Iran’s exported crude — some 1.61 million barrels per day last year — and holds a US$400 billion, 25-year cooperation agreement binding it to Tehran’s stability. However, this is not simply the story of a patron protecting an investment. China has spent years engineering a sanctions-evasion architecture that was never really about Iran — it was about Taiwan. The
In an op-ed published in Foreign Affairs on Tuesday, Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文) said that Taiwan should not have to choose between aligning with Beijing or Washington, and advocated for cooperation with Beijing under the so-called “1992 consensus” as a form of “strategic ambiguity.” However, Cheng has either misunderstood the geopolitical reality and chosen appeasement, or is trying to fool an international audience with her doublespeak; nonetheless, it risks sending the wrong message to Taiwan’s democratic allies and partners. Cheng stressed that “Taiwan does not have to choose,” as while Beijing and Washington compete, Taiwan is strongest when
RSS