Boyhood,Online Harms,and Strength-based Educative Approaches in an Era of Digital Restrictions

Abstract

Partly in response to growing public moral concern about young people’s social media consumption and how this affects their wellbeing, the Australian government has enacted legislation to limit social media access for young people under 16 years of age. While these measures are framed around improving student focus, wellbeing, and safety, public discussion has also intersected with broader anxieties about online masculinity-related content and its powerful influence on boys and young men (BYM). Within an education context, school psychologists and counsellors are increasingly called upon to respond to concerns from teachers and parents regarding the diverse range of risks that digital spaces can pose to BYM, including issues related to internet addiction, online gambling, body image, sexting, extremism, among others. While we have seen some investments in e-safety oriented educational interventions to address these issues, we have also seen notable critiques suggesting they are insufficiently informed by young people’s perspectives and priorities. Drawing from 20 interviews with Australian BYM, this article captures how a diverse cohort of BYM navigate online spaces and their perspectives on its influence in terms of their identity formation, relationships, and wellbeing. We identify four key themes present in the data: (1) negotiating addiction and self-regulation; (2) social connection, belonging, and fear of missing out (FOMO); (3) engaging in comparisons with subsequent emotional consequences; and (4) reflecting on the importance of safeguarding. The research highlights the complexity of BYM’s online experiences and challenges risk-focussed narratives by revealing their perceived agency and the context-specific strategies they use to navigate digital spaces. As educators and school-based mental health professionals consider next steps for developing effective e-safety education, we foreground the importance of adopting a strength-based approach where the experiences of young people are carefully considered.

Keywords

smartphone bans social media young people online harms social pressure student voice

Introduction

Young people in Australia face a variety of restrictions on their digital lives. These restrictions aim to reduce distractions, promote face-to-face interaction, and support students’ mental health and wellbeing, informed by public health research into internet addiction and the negative impacts of lower sociability in young people (Campbell et al., 2024; Edwards et al., 2024; Lozano-Blasco et al., 2022; Odaci et al., 2021). The recent Australian Parliament’s Joint Select Committee on Social Media and Australian Society’s (2024) report called attention to the significant evidence that suggests extended social media usage amplifies existing pressures and mental health risks for vulnerable young people. Following this, in December 2025, Australia enacted the Online Safety Amendment (Social Media Minimum Age) Act 2024, commonly referred to as “the social media ban” for all young people under 16 years of age, extending the existing prohibition of smartphone use in the majority of Australian states and territories.

In considering the development of Australia’s social media ban, we note its widespread popularity¹ with the Australian public and critiques from various stakeholders, including Meta, which recognise that consultation with young people has been either lacking or largely tokenistic (Singh, 2024). Much of the work to date regarding young people and digital safeguarding is couched in adult-centric assumptions about young people’s digital lives. In schools, for example, psychologists and counsellors are often called upon to respond to concerns from teachers and parents about students’ online behaviours. These can include smartphone use in class, social media exposure, and online peer conflict, etc. As educators, parents, psychologists, and counsellors try to grapple with a quickly changing digital landscape, there is legitimate concern that digital restrictions may have unintended consequences and that such restrictions do not necessarily consider the valuable insights of young people. Not including the voices of young people in their e-safety education runs the risk of various educative approaches not being fit for purpose.

Significant concerns regarding the formation of healthy adolescent masculinities have contributed to the decision to implement the social media ban in Australia. We highlight the societal panic regarding the rise in content associated with the “manosphere”² and “toxic masculinity” which has become pervasive in online spaces. Toxic masculinity³ commonly refers to patterns of behaviour and social expectations that valorise misogyny, dominance, emotional suppression, aggression, anti-feminism, and transphobia as markers of manhood. In our current moment, algorithmic platforms (e.g. TikTok and Instagram) often make this content unavoidable for young people (eSafety Commissioner, 2024; Keddie & Flood, 2025). A recent survey by Common Sense Media documenting the online experiences of boys and young men (BYM) captures how nearly three-quarters of boys (73%) regularly encounter content online that promotes influential masculinity-related content. Other research suggests exposure to this content is influencing BYM’s behaviours offline, where we have seen a sharp rise in misogyny in Australian schooling (Schulz et al., 2025) and evidence suggesting increased gender based-violence (Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, 2024). However, while the consumption of toxic masculinity in digital spaces is clearly problematic, the degree of causality regarding misogyny and gender-based violence remains unclear.

In response to these growing anxieties, many schools in Australia have scrambled to find productive educational approaches to counter these influences. For example, the Victorian Government quickly sought to develop curriculum materials to be delivered in schools to “counter the influence of Andrew Tate-types” (Prevention of Family Violence Minister Vicki Ward), though this effort has been critiqued for being “alarmist” and not fit for purpose by Zac Seidler, the Global Director of Men’s Health Research at Movember. Within the mainstream media, we are seeing wider debates in the Australian public about young people’s healthy technology use and the role of education in fostering essential digital literacy skills. A number of these debates rest on various assumptions about young people’s digital lives and, to date, we know very little about how BYM consume and critically analyse digital content, their sense of agency as digital consumers, and any context-specific strategies they might use to safeguard themselves. Filling this gap in knowledge, we argue, is essential to the development of effective e-safety education.

The article is organised in five parts. First, we recount some of the main trends regarding recent research focussed on BYM and social media, highlighting how the conversation has been largely focussed on the influence of masculinity-related content with limited attention to a plethora of digital risks posed to BYM throughout their adolescent development. Second, we position some theoretical tools to think with regarding how e-safety education should be developed with a careful consideration of gender transformation and where there is space to adopt strength-based approaches to work with BYM. Third, we present an overview of our research methodology detailing context and methods, participants, and ethical considerations. Fourth, we present the findings capturing how BYM manage their digital engagement, navigate social connection and belonging, and how they develop an awareness of safety and risk. The article concludes with a discussion that considers what this means for school psychologists and educators who are interested in creating meaningful educational approaches that are both productive and gender-sensitive regarding digital safeguarding and wellbeing.

Background: Online Spaces and the Adolescent Development of Boys and Young Men

Young males, who are part of what is referred to as “Generation Z” or “digital natives,” have grown up immersed in a Web 2.0 world where social media’s pervasive presence shapes their communication, identity formation, and social interactions (Common Sense Media, 2025). Prior to the implementation of the social media ban in December 2025, BYM living in Australia spent on average five hours per day on a myriad of online spaces, including online gaming, social media, video streaming platforms (e.g. YouTube; Thomas, Bennie, De Cocker, Castro & Biddle, 2020).⁴ We know the pervasive nature of the digital – specifically gender-related or masculinity-related digital content – contributes to depression, social anxiety, body image dysmorphia, etc (Bulluss & Baker, 2025; Jones et al., 2023). We also know discussions regarding the digital landscape for BYM today often centre around deepfakes, social anxiety, sexting, AI-generated pornography, among other online harms (see Bates, 2025; Seidler, 2025), with research suggesting that BYM are more susceptible than girls to pornography addiction (Hanseder & Dantas, 2023; Meehan, 2023) and online gaming addiction (Mancini et al., 2025; Salahuddin & Muazzam, 2019). QUITTR has become a popular mobile app designed to help users, mainly BYM, overcome porn addiction through behaviour tracking, motivational tools, and community support. It offers a 90-day recovery programme grounded in neuroscience, allowing users to monitor their progress, track clean days, and visualise growth through features like a “life tree.” Similarly in non-Western contexts, the Zhengqi app in China reflects the same approach, aiming to leverage traditional cultural elements through daily reflections and peer support to promote self-control against porn addiction (Wu & Liu, 2026).

A prominent theme in research on BYM in digital spaces is how they struggle with their sense of self in relation to what they are exposed to online, especially if they feel they cannot measure up to the impossible images and expectations of masculinity presented to them (Drummond, 2023). Research continues to capture how BYM in Australia use online content to define masculine norms and gender dynamics – identities which were traditionally learned through family and peers (eSafety Commissioner, 2024; Keddie & Flood, 2025). Recent reporting suggests that for a significant number of BYM, the social pressures amplified by social media – specifically in relation to “looksmaxxing” and “gymmaxxing” – highlight how social media contributes to competitive social hierarchies (James, 2024). International research from gender-justice non-profits like Movember Foundation (2023), Equimundo and Futures Without Violence (2024) presents significant evidence that masculinity-related content shapes how BYM understand their own gender identity and wellbeing as well as their social justice values, especially those concerning gender equity. We note research from Movember which highlights how, in 2024, search interest in “AI girlfriends” increased by approximately 33% globally, with Australia registering the largest national growth at 47% (Seidler, 2025). Platforms such as Character.AI and Replika facilitate highly personalised, algorithmically mediated parasocial relationships where they describe themselves as sources of guidance on interpersonal relationships, identity formation, and everyday decision-making.

To develop our understanding regarding how BYM interpret masculinity-related digital content, and how they perform their masculinity online, we recognise significant scholarship on how males are socialised into, and negotiate, gendered expectations and pressures. Studies in the field of Critical Studies of Men and Masculinities (CSMM) continue to highlight how masculinity is relational, socially constructed, enacted, and informed in relation to various forms of socialisation (e.g. family, school, peers, and digital; Connell, 1995; Connell & Messerschmidt, 2005). We are reminded of the words of Frosh et al. (2017), who state, “Masculinity has to constantly be proven and reasserted; it is a precarious identity, dependent on the approval of others” (p. 37). Addressing the adolescent development of BYM, Farkas and Leaper (2016) suggest it is a time of young men’s experimentation with different versions of manhood to form their identity, where they “develop stereotypic attitudes about desirable (prescriptive) and undesirable (proscriptive) gender role traits and behaviors” (p. 357). Or, as Way et al.’s (2014) research highlights, as BYM grow older they often feel compelled by wider societal pressures to suppress emotional openness. This comes because of societal expectations of toughness as foundational to the production of masculinity, through which, to varying extents, their friendships fade and are replaced by guarded or detached expressions (see also Flood, 2018, 2024; Smith et al., 2020). Collectively, these studies indicate that as BYM move through adolescence, experimentation with masculine identities is heavily informed by socially constructed prescriptive gender norms. However, much of this work predates the rise of ubiquitous algorithmically curated, participatory digital cultures through which masculinities are learned, performed, and policed in a variety of complex ways.

E-Safety Education and Gender Transformative Practices

We see the research presented in this article as in dialogue with recent scholarship on e-safety education (Estellés & Doyle, 2025), which considers how we effectively safeguard young people in terms of building resilience and coping mechanisms that equip them with a sophisticated knowledge base to navigate a wide diversity of digital spaces (Livingstone, 2013; Macaulay et al., 2020). E-safety education, when effective, proactively teaches individuals to identify and mitigate online risks to build resilience against harmful content and become empowered digital citizens. Furthermore, given recent events and growing concerns, we would argue e-safety education – and education generally – should account heavily for gender socialisation adopting appropriate gender justice approaches so young people can engage in productive reflection (Keddie & Ollis, 2019). After all, while clearly diverse masculinities exist and are performed (Pease, 2014), BYM in Australia report continued pressures to be “real men,” feeling boxed in by various masculine norms (e.g. emotional stoicism, self-reliance, dominance, heterosexuality, and avoidance of anything deemed “feminine”) that contribute to a constrained sense of self (The Men’s Project & Flood, 2018, 2024) dictating how they “should” think, feel, and behave.

Research, while limited, continues to foreground the importance of working with young people to develop effective forms of e-safety education. Relevant to school psychologists and counsellors is building an evidence base that acknowledges how young people are attuned to the diverse range of risks that digital spaces present, along with how their attunement may be informed by gender. According to Keddie and Flood (2025), if we are to safeguard BYM, we must engage with gender-transformation approaches in tandem with the fostering of critical digital literacies (see also Scholes et al., 2026). These “gender-transformative” approaches should actively challenge and seek to change harmful gender norms, roles and power imbalances, to shift social attitudes, behaviours and, in some cases, institutional practices that contribute to sustained gender inequities. Extending the work of Pangrazio (2018), Keddie and Flood (2025) contend these approaches should be strength-based, involving educators working with BYM to develop what they refer to as “critical digital dispositions” composed of four areas for navigating online life: curatorial intentionality (strategic content and identity management), scepticism (questioning content and platform designs), ethical engagement (responsible action considering impacts on others), and reflexivity (self-critical examination of one’s own biases).

While we draw on Keddie and Flood’s (2025) work and consider it as foundational to our arguments, we also highlight the value in reframing e-safety education through a public health approach where including the voices of clients – in this case BYM – is integral to how we transform health promotion. In their systematic review of gender-transformative health programme design, Sianis et al. (2024) contend that productively engaging men and boys is widely seen as essential to addressing issues such as sexual and reproductive health inequality, gender-based violence, and inequitable gender attitudes that affect everyone. Providing information, programmes, and services that are gender-sensitive and/or gender-transformative is how we better meet the specific health and wellbeing needs of males. There is significant research which captures the genuine challenge in gender-sensitising the work of health practitioners (Seidler et al., 2022, 2024), but for the most part this work has not been in dialogue with e-safety education – which largely remains gender neutral – or the work of psychologists and school counsellors.

Aims

Our research was designed to provide both breadth and depth in understanding BYM’s engagement with digital spaces. The aim was to collect data regarding how a diverse group of BYM navigate various social pressures within online spaces as well as how they perceive digital media shaping their understandings of wellbeing. Relevant to those interested in the wellbeing of BYM, we captured some key aspects of their emotional, relational, and ethical dimensions of their digital lives.

Method

This study, Young Men Navigating Digital Spaces, adopted a mixed-methods approach to examine how BYM in diverse cultural and geographic contexts negotiated messages about masculinity in digital spaces.

Participants and Recruitment

Participants included BYM aged 15 to 25 years from across Australia and China. The Australian sample was recruited through posters at universities, gyms, sporting centres, and cafes, while the Chinese sample was accessed via social media, existing networks, and snowball sampling. In Australia, participants were also recruited through various school sites in South Australia and Queensland. The cohort reflected a diversity in age, sexuality, ethnicity, and social class, though the data was skewed to those BYM attending university (Table 1).

Table 1.

Demographic characteristics of participants (aged 18–25 years) who participated in semi-structured interviews (N = 20).

Variable	Category	n	%
Age range	18–19	3	15
	20–22	10	50
	23–25	7	35
Nationality/origin	Australian	6	30
	Chinese/Hong Kong	5	25
	European (Swiss, French, British)	3	15
	South Asian/Zimbabwean/Brazilian/Malaysian	6	30
Current location	Brisbane, QLD	15	75
Current location	Other (Sydney, Sunshine Coast, China)	5	25
Occupation/study	University students	18	90
Occupation/study	Working/gap year	2	10
Sexuality (stated)	Heterosexual	8	40
	Homosexual	3	15
	Not stated	9	45

Data Sources

Data were generated through a combination of a demographic survey and qualitative methods from May to November of 2023, prior to the implementation of Australia’s social media ban. All participants completed the online survey which collected key information, digital media habits, and platform preferences. The survey also functioned as a recruitment tool, allowing participants to indicate interest in participating in one-to-one interviews or focus groups. A large portion of participants volunteered to participate in semi-structured interviews (N = 52). Interview questions focussed on identity formation, peer interactions, exposure to gendered content, and strategies for managing online risks. Interviews were conducted in participants’ preferred language and format – via Zoom, in person, or through WeChat for the Chinese cohort – and lasted an average ~50 min. An additional seven focus groups (N = 27) in Australia were also held to discuss digital practices, peer relationships, and gendered expectations online, mainly with participants under the age of 18. These hour-long sessions focussed on social norms, online pressures, and strategies for navigating digital environments. For the purposes of this article, we report only on the Australian qualitative data from the 20 individual semi-structured interviews with participants over the age of 18 years.

Research Team and Analytical Approach

While the research team was quite large, the bulk of the interviews were conducted by one middle-aged White female researcher and one middle-aged White male researcher in Australia, and one millennial Chinese male researcher in China. The research team used open-ended questioning, reflexivity, and rapport-building strategies (humour, self-disclosure, and acknowledgment of generational gaps) to foster open dialogue. Analytical procedures involved thematic coding (Braun & Clarke, 2006) focussed on identity, risk, and digital engagement. Reflexive discussions among researchers helped address positionality, power, and cross-cultural interpretation. NVivo was used to systematically code interview and focus group data, allowing us to identify and compare recurring themes related to masculinity, digital media use, and wellbeing. The software supported organisation of data by participant characteristics and facilitated exploration of patterns across diverse contexts.

Ethical Considerations

Ethical approval for Young Men Navigating Digital Spaces was obtained from the Human Research Ethics Committee at The University of Queensland prior to data collection (2024/HE001011). Participation was voluntary, and informed consent was secured from all participants, with parental consent obtained for those aged under 18 years. Confidentiality and anonymity were maintained throughout. Over the course of the study, the research team also attended to potential power imbalances between adult researchers and young participants, acknowledging generational and cultural hierarchies while employing practical strategies around rapport building to create a respectful research environment which promoted participation. All participants were compensated with a gift voucher for their time.

Findings

Our research sought to understand BYM’s engagement with digital spaces, specifically how they perceived digital media in relation to their own wellbeing. From the data, four key themes came to the fore related to BYM identity formation, relationships and wellbeing in relation to smartphone-based social media use: (1) negotiating addiction and self-regulation; (2) social connection, belonging and fear of missing out (FOMO); (3) engaging in comparisons and the emotional consequences; and (4) reflecting on the importance of safeguarding.

Theme 1: Negotiating Addiction and Self-Regulation

Many BYM we spoke with described addictive patterns regarding their use of smartphone-based social media. This accords with arguments presented by Arslan and Coşkun (2022), who contend that “Internet addiction is a growing prevalent behavioural addiction that causes numerous psychosocial problems (p. 2615; see also Odaci et al., 2021). The participants also commonly recognised the design of platforms – short, fast, tailored content – as being strategically designed to be habit-forming. Several mentioned trying to self-regulate through deleting apps, setting timers, or turning off phones, but also reported that these efforts were often temporary or difficult to sustain. As one participant noted:

It does genuinely become addictive sometimes, like, just scrolling through like different videos, like, different entertainment. This is just constant, like, quick. It’s quick videos. You can quickly watch it. It’s not like watching YouTube where you have to watch like a full 20-minute video. It’s only like a couple of seconds. Like, you get that 10 seconds of fun. You keep scrolling. You know what I mean? That’s why it’s addictive. (Bill, 19)

Other participants highlighted the extensive time they lost in scrolling through their phones, describing this as time not well spent.

So yeah, I go on and check to see if there’s a message and then I see all these red, like alarmist notifications and I click on all of them. I have to, and that takes one or two minutes. And then I got drawn into Instagram Reels because it’s there . . . And you know, an hour later, I’ve missed a deadline or something. (Angus, 22)

Joel (21):

It’s just like brain rot that basically just comes up on your screen, but it’s just like addictive cause it’s just like videos that are tailored towards you. So, I don’t know, it just, it becomes quite addictive and then like one second, you’ll be on it for like, I don’t know, 10 minutes. And then the next, you’ll just be doom scrolling for like an hour.

Researcher:

Fair enough. So, you self-regulate that, pretty much during that time?

Joel:

The only way I know how to is just by like deleting the app. Cause like, I don’t know. Like there’s no other way, otherwise.

Here Joel discusses a commitment to personal safeguarding, recognising a lack of perceived control over his digital behaviour and adopting measures to self-regulate. His decision to delete the app reflects awareness of its addictive nature and an attempt to regain agency, illustrating the tension between digital dependency and self-discipline encountered reported by several BYM. Connecting back to the addictive nature of certain apps, Jack asserts:

If you start your day, if you wake up and the first thing you do is go on Instagram . . . the first hit of dopamine is what you are fixated on for the rest of the day. So, if you wake up and you go for a run and get a runner’s high . . . that’s a more motivating form of dopamine. But if you start off with Instagram, that’s what your brain is going to crave - that dopamine for the rest of the day. (Jack, 20)

Similarly, Bill described, “I set a timer for myself. I’m like, no more than like this. Or like I turn off my phone every now and again just to, like, not see it.” Across the cohort, several BYM displayed critical awareness of social media addiction via their smartphone use – what Keddie and Flood (2025) refer to as scepticism (questioning content and platform designs) and reflexivity (self-critical examination of one’s own biases). This demonstrates both a developed and developing digital literacy (Pangrazio, 2018) where BYM understood the relationship between platform dynamics and their own psychology or wellbeing. Although certain BYM described being pulled into addictive and algorithm-driven scrolling, they also often consciously worked to assert agency by deleting apps, setting limits, and other forms of self-regulation:

. . . I don’t have TikTok because I don’t want to, I don’t want to be exposed to something like that, because I know I’ll get addicted, I know, I know I’ll use it compulsively, but now if I want to use all these other sites, which I’m at a disadvantage if I don’t use them . . . I’m just exposed to these, to a really similar thing, so it’s basically impossible, it’s basically impossible to avoid it . . . once you’re on these things, you’re, yeah, you’re exposed . . . (Angus, 22)

Theme 2: Social Connection, Belonging, and Fear of Missing Out (FOMO)

BYM also described exercising agency by strategically engaging or stepping back from social media to balance a sense of belonging with their wellbeing. However, they also said these attempts were constrained by FOMO, social pressures, and platform designs that reward constant visibility. Drawing on Keddie and Flood’s (2025) positioning of what they call “ethical engagement,” the BYM’s desire for connection underscores how they engage with social media on their smartphone. BYM navigate a techno-social landscape that includes “phubbing,”⁵ social exclusion, and self-regulation: Being “visible” or “liked” is entangled with belonging and social validation and, in choosing not to participate, BYM run the risk of exclusion, shaming, or performative solidarity:

Yeah . . . you need it, really early, yeah, I think it’s really hard to have a good social life if you don’t use these things. Because every event will be, if you’re not checking, if I’m not checking Snapchat, I will not see, like, an event which I’ve been invited to . . . Yeah, there we go, like, that’s the social network. (Angus, 22)

Desire for connection and inclusion shapes how BYM interact online where their relational behaviours online (sharing memes, liking, commenting, etc.) are reflective of a commitment to being socially engaged.

So, it was a bit, like, I noticed that that was a big part of, like, early high school especially . . . I felt a little bit left out, I’d say, but it wasn’t, like, it was, I wasn’t missing out on too much . . . [I had] some close friends that had phones, like, before, well before I did, like, year seven and that. They’ve definitely become, or they were, they are probably now, but they’re pretty, I’d say they’re a lot more reliant on it than I am. (Theo, 18)

In their research, Keddie and Flood (2025) also found BYM struggling regarding their need for disconnection where not moderating “their time online leaves many feeling stuck in patterns they recognise as harmful” (p. 25). The BYM they spoke with felt “an overwhelming urge to check their social media accounts frequently, driven by ‘FOMO’ (fear of missing out) on updates or social interactions” (p. 24). Echoing this, one participant in our study, James, similarly framed phone use as a symptom of disconnection – a substitute for meaning, purpose, or real-world relationships.

So, I think if you’re, like, less connected in like real life, like you have less responsibilities, less meanings in life, then you’ll look for meanings in the other place. And for them it could be like in their phones because it’s like a really e asy place to reach. So, I think that’s how they might get hooked on and like they look for a place to identify or a place to like to get a sense of belonging kind of thing. (James, 21)

Highlighting a key tension BYM negotiate today, a number of the participants expressed feeling socially excluded without phones but emotionally drained when they use them. Therefore, they describe digital connection as a double-edged sword – it provides belonging but also dependency and can lead to comparison-driven distress.

Theme 3: Engaging in Comparisons and the Emotional Consequences

The BYM we spoke with demonstrated agency wherein they recognised how curated content and algorithms may affect their emotions and adjusted their online behaviour in response to that knowledge. Extending Keddie and Flood’s (2025) arguments concerning scepticism and reflexivity, our participants also said they felt the time spent online often led to feelings of inadequacy and self-doubt. These emotions indicate the weight of comparison but also moments of questioning algorithms, the authenticity of influencers, and the unreality of “highlight reels” suggesting the ongoing development of a sceptical stance. The curated nature of online identities appeared to amplify BYM’s feelings of inadequacy and of being overwhelmed in reference to the amount of information in their feeds. Joey, for example, reflected on the performances of success and appearance and how this leads to social pressures:

And there’s always like, yeah, it’s just like, is it like it influences you - Like you always like, yeah, it’s the same thing kind of as Instagram where like, you have like all of these like super strong people who like come across as like typical, like masculine, like vibe if you want, like successful, strong, stuff like that. And like, you always see it online and you’re like, how did he do it? And then so like, yeah, of course you get influenced. (Joey, 18)

Numerous BYM suggested that their sense of reflexivity deepened when they were able to gain insights into their own emotional reactions to their digital habits.

. . . I just realised, even in the last week or two, I realised I go onto Instagram and I see something and I just feel bad as soon as I get on Instagram. But I have this compulsive, every morning I need to go ont o Instagram and get rid of the notifications. I know, you know, everything’s designed to be addictive. So I do that. But I always come across like one story or something where I’m just like, oh God, I wish I hadn’t seen that. I wish I was blissfully ignorant. (Angus, 22)

As the conversation proceeded, Angus discussed feelings of envy and the affective dimension associated with feeling inadequate:

In my case, it’s like, so from my university, maybe half of people in third year go on a year abroad. And that’s all around the world, not just Australia. But everyone’s posting on their stories. And I’ll see one thing and I’m like, okay, that looks, you know, they’ve picked like the best photo. I was like, oh, their group of friends looks amazing or whatever. I’m just like, oh, it just, it makes me feel, that makes me feel bad. So, I guess peer, yeah, posts from peers can, which, yeah, they can, they can affect me. (Angus, 22)

In his reflection, Angus recognises two important factors – first, the cognitive overload involved with engaging with social media which can feel overwhelming and, second, how his exposure to stylised images of success (e.g. “a year abroad,” and “they’ve picked like the best photo”) shapes his own perceptions of self-worth.

Theme 4: Reflecting on the Importance of Safeguarding

Existing narratives regarding young people and the influence of digital worlds often positions them as neither critical of the content they consume nor agentic in their own safeguarding. If we are to effectively educate young people, we need to shift this simplistic narrative (Scholes et al., 2026). We saw a range of examples of BYM demonstrating a developing moral compass and critical agency regarding privacy, consent, and safety – acknowledging that digital actions have real consequences for others. Their suspicion toward platform manipulation and the various risks associated with it reflects scepticism about the architectures that structure online life and how this may influence their wellbeing and sense of self. BYM made frequent references to the inseparability of technological and social processes, emphasising how digital infrastructures, platforms, and algorithms inform interaction, behaviours, and identities. As Noah articulates:

If most of your waking hours are spent doing something on a certain platform, that’s going to change how you see the world . . . it’s like over 10 hours or something . . . how could you expect that to not change the way you see the world? (Noah, 23)

Furthermore, in reflecting on how much time he spent on his smartphone, Noah noted:

At least a few hours, I would say. . . . Phone [time] especially is something that I think is something I’m trying to lower. I think a lot of people include it, use too much, especially social media . . . It’s literally designed, like there’s a team of the smartest scientists making this so you come back to it. Like, [it’s] as addicting as possible. I think it is hard . . . trying to stay grounded in the real world, like making real friends, having real hobbies. It’s probably one of the best ways to spend less time [with people]. (Noah, 23)

BYM suggested that their younger counterparts lack the capacity to healthily manage their own social media use frequently and discussed the need for education, supervision, and digital maturity. Several BYM said that they supported Australia’s social media ban due to the ways their own lives had been shaped by early exposure to social media which they largely viewed as problematic to their adolescent development. Some BYM mentioned the importance of adult guidance and the promotion of digital literacy in schools as necessary interventions suggesting that current e-safety efforts may be not fit for purpose.

Like people need to be taught . . . I don’t think kids should be going on the internet unsupervised. Like no 12-year-old needs a phone, right? So yeah, I think like these things are fixable, at least for the most part, but it’s also not going to happen on its own. (Mark, 24)

Discussion

Throughout the research, the BYM we spoke with described their smartphone use as both necessary and problematic, acknowledging the addictive design of platforms and the difficulty of sustaining self-regulation. While many adopted strategies such as deleting apps, setting timers, or turning off notifications, these were often temporary measures that reflected ongoing struggles to balance digital engagement, FOMO, and self-control. Despite these challenges, BYM demonstrated critical awareness of platform algorithms and their own vulnerabilities, revealing different aspects of digital literacy and reflexivity (Keddie & Flood, 2025; Pangrazio, 2018). Social connection emerged as both a motivator and a source of distress where smartphone usage – specifically social media – was described as essential for belonging and participation, yet also as a conduit for social pressure and emotional fatigue (Scholes et al., 2026). Several BYM in our study also described emotional strain linked to social comparison, particularly when encountering curated images of success and popularity. In terms of the emotional toll of algorithmically driven feeds, feelings of inadequacy, envy, and disconnection were common yet often accompanied by varying degrees of critical reflection on how such content shapes self-perception.

We recognise strength-based approaches are founded in mobilising the knowledge and resources of young people and equipping them with critical skills to navigate future risks. While, for the most part this is undeveloped and under-researched in e-safety education, we recognise a persistent theme in e-safety policy which foregrounds the importance of a “young person-centred approach” as mentioned by ReachOut, Prevention United, the National Mental Health Commission, eSafety Youth Council, etc (see full listing in Australian Parliament’s Joint Select Committee on Social Media and Australian Society, 2024). Strength-based approaches also align global discourses on gender justice (Opozda et al., 2025), specifically in reference to the wellbeing of males. The World Health Organization (Gough & Novikova, 2020) and the American Psychological Association (2018) continue to call for gendered-sensitive and/or gender-transformative programmes to meet the specific needs of males, though a set of best practices remains elusive. As Way et al. (2014) asserts, “According to this growing body of research, the key to helping boys thrive lies in fostering boys’ resistance to masculine norms that encourage boys not to express their feelings, to engage in aggressive behaviour, and to deny their desire and need for relationships” (p. 242). Taken together, these insights underscore the need for e-safety programmes and therapeutic approaches that not only centre young people’s voices but simultaneously integrate gender-transformative approaches that support boys’ emotional expression, relational skills, and overall wellbeing in relation to what they encounter in digital environments.

Implications for School Counsellors and Psychologists

Clearly, boys and young men face a concerning array of online risks in their digital lives. For example, we could never have foreseen that educators would need to address the increasing ubiquity of algorithmically mediated parasocial relationships which create new challenges for those interested in the wellbeing of BYM. School psychologists and counsellors in particular have a crucial role to play in assisting BYM to navigate the risks and rewards of their digital worlds. Odaci et al. (2021) highlight the complex interplay of psychological, social, and personal factors school counsellors confront and the need to use holistic, evidence-based strategies through both individual and group interventions to support affected adolescents. With this in mind, our research suggests that BYM’s capacity for critical reflection and awareness of platform design offers opportunities for interventions that strengthen metacognitive skills, emotional resilience, and adaptive coping strategies, supporting wellbeing in the context of pervasive digital exposure. Research continues to focus on how adolescents are responsive to e-safety when it is authentic and emphasises improved decision-making around potential risks (Macaulay et al., 2020). In a practical sense, we encourage psychologists and counsellors to consider how they might leverage BYM’s demonstrated agency and reflexivity within school settings as they engage in discussions of digital safeguarding that move beyond an overemphasis on risk.

While we do advocate for a strength-based approach, we also recognise how public health research continues to highlight the significant challenges in engaging males. For example, recent research by Seidler et al. (2022, 2024), regarding the Men in Mind training programme, sought to enhance the work of mental health practitioners so they could be more confident in gender-sensitising their care. This work underscores the importance of structured, evidence-based training in equipping practitioners to respond to the unique emotional, relational, and mental health needs of males, thereby supporting improved engagement and outcomes in therapeutic contexts. If we consider what this may look like in schools, these could include reflective questioning, collaborative goal setting, peer discussion formats, and co-designed media literacy exercises, all of which can both build on and draw from the critical capacities of BYM as they navigate their digital environments (Scholes et al. 2026).

As educators and mental health professionals consider what needs to be done in terms of advancing e-safety education – a curriculum which is admittedly informed by a quickly shifting landscape – there is a need to carefully consider and elevate the voices of young people. From a counselling perspective, issues related to self-regulation, FOMO, comparison, and safeguarding could be addressed through school-based interventions, such as: individual counselling conversations with students about online stress, comparison, or compulsive use psychoeducation or classroom-based wellbeing initiatives, consultation with teachers regarding classroom smartphone policies or student behaviour, guidance for parents navigating questions about bans, supervision, and digital maturity. Regardless of the approach, research continues to highlight there is a productive space to co-produce evidence-informed strategies that promote digital citizenship and e-safety with BYM, offering practical guidance that reflects their lived experiences (see Anyon et al., 2018). Furthermore, centring the perspectives of BYM complements both the e-safety policy remit as well as Australia National Men’s Health Strategy 2020 to 2030.

Conclusion

Regardless of the effectiveness of Australia’s social media ban, the lead up to its implementation fostered productive discussions in Australia regarding what young people are exposed to online and how they navigate digital risks. The ban will no doubt have a variety of unintended consequences which psychologists and school counsellors will have to confront, such as withdrawal, covert use, increased tension between young people and parents, among others. While restrictions sound like a positive step forward, limiting spaces where social connections, identity experimentation, and access to supportive networks take place has implications which need to be carefully considered.

Our research suggests BYM are engaged in digital literacy and finding ways to actively safeguard themselves while at the same time looking for guidance from trusted adults. As research continues to document how young people are subjected to a diverse array of gendered pressures in digital spaces, it is concerning we see little attention to the gendering of e-safety education. This seems odd given the overwhelming policy focus in Australia, and elsewhere, regarding an emerging focus on healthy, progressive, and expansive masculinities, though we acknowledge significant challenges remain in translating these ideals into practice. Therefore, to conclude, we build on the work of Keddie and Flood (2025) in arguing that e-safety education should exist in tandem with gender-sensitive and/or gender-transformative approaches that platform young men’s perspectives. The authentic voices of BYM are integral to how we develop educative approaches which raise awareness around digital safeguarding and enhancing critical engagement with digital spaces. While this is in no way easy work, the endeavour is certainly preferable to government efforts to develop quick-fix adult-centric curriculum materials to “counter the influence of Andrew Tate-types” (Prevention of Family Violence Minister Vicki Ward). Enduring and positive change will only come from e-safety approaches that meaningfully seek and utilise young people’s perspectives, digital knowledge, and existing critical capacities.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank the anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments and useful suggestions which led to an improvement of this paper.

ORCID iDs

Garth Stahl

Rohann Irving

Yang Zhao

Melissa Opozda

Laura Scholes

Lisa Holohan

Mair Underwood

Murray Drummond

James A. Smith

Funding

The authors disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: We acknowledge funding received by the Centre for Digital Cultures & Societies at The University of Queensland.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Notes

References

American Psychological Association, Boys and Men Guidelines Group. (2018). Guidelines for psychological practice with boys and men. https://www.apa.org/about/policy/boys-men-practice-guidelines.pdf

Anyon

Bender

Kennedy

Dechants

(2018). A systematic review of youth participatory action research (YPAR) in the United States: Methodologies, youth outcomes, and future directions. Health Education & Behavior, 45(6), 865–878.

Arslan

Coşkun

(2022). Social exclusion, self-forgiveness, mindfulness, and internet addiction in college students: A moderated mediation approach. International Journal of Mental Health and Addiction, 20(4), 2165–2179.

Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. (2024). Who uses family, domestic and sexual violence? https://www.aihw.gov.au/family-domestic-and-sexual-violence/understanding-fdsv/who-uses-violence

Bates

(2025) The new age of sexism: How the AI revolution is reinventing misogyny. Simon & Schuster.

Braun

Clarke

(2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101.

Bulluss

Baker

(2025). Real talk: Masculinity and young men’s mental health. Orygen. https://www.orygen.org.au/Orygen-Institute/Policy-Areas/Population-groups/Real-talk-Masculinity-and-young-men%E2%80%99s-mental-h-(1)

Campbell

Edwards

E. J.

Pennell

(2024). Evidence for and against banning mobile phones in schools: A scoping review. Issues in Educational Research, 34(1), 52–70. https://doi.org/10.3316/ielapa.0340152

Common Sense Media. 2025. Boys in the digital wild: Online culture, identity, and well-being. https://www.commonsensemedia.org/sites/default/files/research/report/2025-boys-in-the-digital-wild-report_for-web.pdf

10.

Connell

R. W.

(1995). Masculinities. University of California Press.

11.

Connell

R. W.

Messerschmidt

J. W.

(2005). Hegemonic masculinity: Rethinking the concept. Gender & Society, 19(6), 829–859.

12.

Drummond

(2023). Expendable young males. Sport, Education and Society, 28(1), 17–29.

13.

Edwards

E. J.

McLeod

Vaughan

R. S.

Khan

(2024). Anxiety related distractibility deficits: Too much smartphone use is not such a smart call. Behaviour & Information Technology, 43(13), 3253–3260. https://doi.org/10.1080/0144929X.2023.2274891

14.

Equimundo and Futures Without Violence. (2024). The manosphere, rewired: Understanding masculinities online and pathways for healthy connection. Center for Masculinities and Social Justice.

15.

eSafety Commissioner. (2024). Being a young man online: Tensions, complexities and possibilities. Australian Government.

16.

Estellés

Doyle

(2025). From safeguarding to critical digital citizenship? A systematic review of approaches to online safety education. Review of Education, 13(1), Article 70 056.

17.

Farkas

Leaper

(2016). The psychology of boys. In Wong

Y. J.

Wester

S. R.

(Eds.), APA handbook of men and masculinities (pp. 357–387). American Psychological Association.

18.

Flood

(2018). The man box: A study on being a young man in Australia. Jesuit Social Services.

19.

Flood

(2024). The man box 2024: Re-examining what it means to be a man in Australia. The Men’s Project and Michael Flood.

20.

Frosh

Phoenix

Pattman

(2017). Young masculinities: Understanding boys in contemporary society. Palgrave Macmillan.

21.

Gough

Novikova

(2020). Mental health, men and culture: How do sociocultural constructions of masculinities relate to men’s mental health help-seeking behaviour in the WHO European Region? World Health Organization.

22.

Hanseder

Dantas

J. A.

(2023). Males’ lived experience with self-perceived pornography addiction: A qualitative study of problematic porn use. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 20(2), 1497.

23.

James. (2024). From bone smashing to chin extensions: How ‘looksmaxxing’ is reshaping young men’s faces. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2024/feb/15/from-bone-smashing-to-chin-extensions-how-looksmaxxing-is-reshaping-young-mens-faces

24.

Joint Select Committee on Social Media and Australian Society. (2024). Social media: The good, the bad, and the ugly: Final report (Parliamentary paper). https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Joint/Social_Media_and_Australian_Society/SocialMedia/Final_report

25.

Jones

Verity

Panayiotou

Qualter

(2023). A review of evidence on the link between masculinity, loneliness, and suicide as observed in social media discussions. Current Research in Behavioral Sciences, 5, Article 100129.

26.

Keddie

Flood

(Eds.). (2025). Cultivating critical digital dispositions for gender justice. In Young men’s online lives (pp. 109–129). Springer Nature Switzerland.

27.

Keddie

Ollis

(2019). Teaching for gender justice: Free to be me? The Australian Educational Researcher, 46(3), 533–547.

28.

Livingstone

(2013). Online risk, harm and vulnerability: Reflections on the evidence base for child Internet safety policy. ZER: Journal of Communication Studies, 18(35), 13–28.

29.

Lozano-Blasco

Robres

A. Q.

Sánchez

A. S.

(2022). Internet addiction in young adults: A meta-analysis and systematic review. Computers in Human Behavior, 130, Article 107201.

30.

Macaulay

P. J.

Boulton

M. J.

Betts

L. R.

Boulton

Camerone

Down

Hughes

Kirkbride

Kirkham

(2020). Subjective versus objective knowledge of online safety/dangers as predictors of children’s perceived online safety and attitudes towards e-safety education in the United Kingdom. Journal of Children and Media, 14(3), 376–395.

31.

Mancini

V. O.

Brett

J. D.

Heirene

R. M.

Fisher

Nevill

T. P.

Mitrou

(2025). Predicting problem gambling in young men: The impact of sports gambling frequency and internalizing symptoms. Journal of Gambling Studies, 41, 1119–1144.

32.

Meehan

(Ed.). (2023). Boys and porn. In The politics of porn for young people in New Zealand (pp. 71–95). Springer International Publishing.

33.

The Men’s Project, & Flood

. (2018). The man box: A study on being a young man in Australia. Jesuit Social Services.

34.

The Men’s Project, & Flood

. (2024). The man box 2024: Re-examining what it means to be a man in Australia. The Men’s Project and Michael Flood.

35.

Movember Foundation. (2023). Masculinity and mental health in the digital age: Understanding men’s online experiences.

36.

NSW Government. (2024). Mobile phone ban improves learning, concentration and socialisation. https://www.nsw.gov.au/media-releases/mobile-phone-ban-improves-learning-concentration-and-socialisation

37.

Odaci

Değerli

F. I.

Cikrikci

(2021). Internet addiction in high school and university students: An evaluation in terms of various psychological, social and personal variables. Journal of Psychologists and Counsellors in Schools, 31(1), 3–14.

38.

Opozda

M. J.

Oliffe

J. L.

Galdas

Smith

J. A

. (2025). Advancing boys’ and men’s mental health equity—response to the Lancet Commission on gender and global health. International Journal of Men’s Social and Community Health, 8(2), 68–70.

39.

Pangrazio

(2018). Young people’s literacies in the digital age: Continuities, conflicts and contradictions. Routledge.

40.

Pease

(2014). Hegemonic masculinity and the gendering of men in disaster management: Implications for social work education. Advances in Social Work and Welfare Education, 16(2), 60–72.

41.

Peker

Cengiz

Cingil

(2025). The relationship between exposure to phubbing and engage in phubbing behavior in adolescents: The roles of social exclusion and self-regulation. Journal of Psychologists and Counsellors in Schools, 35(3), 290–302

42.

Salahuddin

Muazzam

(2019). Gaming addiction in adolescent boys. Clinical and Counselling Psychology Review, 1(2), 1–19.

43.

Scholes

Stahl

McDonald

(2026). Boyhood in the digital age. Palgrave.

44.

Schulz

McDonald

Zembylas

(2025). ‘Tell this fuckin’ bitch to pull her head in’: Affective infrastructures of gender injustice and manosphere classroom encounters. Gender and Education. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1080/09540253.2025.2568404

45.

Seidler

(2025). What will fill the void? Why young men need more than a social media boundary. Movember Institute. https://movember.substack.com/p/what-will-fill-the-void-why-young

46.

Seidler

Z. E.

Wilson

M. J.

Benakovic

MacKinnon

Oliffe

J. L.

Ogrodniczuk

J. S.

Kealy

Owen

Pirkis

Mihalopoulos

L. K.

Rice

S. M.

(2024). A randomized wait-list controlled trial of Men in Mind: Enhancing mental health practitioners’ self-rated clinical competencies to work with men. American Psychologist, 79(3), 423–436.

47.

Seidler

Z. E.

Wilson

M. J.

Toogood

Oliffe

J. L.

Kealy

Ogrodniczuk

J. S.

Owen

Lee

Rice

S. M.

(2022). Pilot evaluation of the Men in Mind training program for mental health practitioners. Psychology of Men & Masculinities, 23(2), 257–264.

48.

Sianis

Oxlad

Hamilton

Turnbull

(2025). Young males’ perspectives of gender-transformative health promotion programs: A systematic review and metasynthesis. Psychology of Men & Masculinities, 26(3), 343–359.

49.

Singh

(2024, November 29). Meta accuses Australian government of rushing under-16 social media ban without consulting young people. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/media/2024/nov/29/meta-australia-social-media-ban-response

50.

Smith

J. A.

Merlino

Christie

Adams

Bonson

Osborne

Judd

Drummond

Aanundsen

Fleay

(2020). ‘Dudes are meant to be tough as nails’: The complex nexus between masculinities, culture and health literacy from the perspective of young Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander males–Implications for policy and practice. American Journal of Men’s Health, 14(3), 1557988320936121.

51.

Thomas

Bennie

J. A.

De Cocker

Castro

Biddle

S. J.

(2020). A descriptive epidemiology of screen-based devices by children and adolescents: A scoping review of 130 surveillance studies since 2000. Child Indicators Research, 13(3), 935–950.

52.

Thomas

Bennie

J. A.

De Cocker

Ireland

M. J.

Biddle

S. J.

(2020). Screen-based behaviors in Australian adolescents: Longitudinal trends from a 4-year follow-up study. Preventive Medicine, 141, Article 106258.

53.

Way

Cressen

Bodian

Preston

Nelson

Hughes

(2014). “It might be nice to be a girl. . . Then you wouldn’t have to be emotionless”: Boys’ resistance to norms of masculinity during adolescence. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 15(3), 241.

54.

Liu

(2026). The entangled coexistence of materiality and subjectivity: A new materialist analysis of China’s JIESE community. Culture, Health & Sexuality, 28, 211–227.