The ACT is open to considering bans on young people from being able to access social media, but wants any restrictions to be nationally consistent.
However, an expert said greater regulation of social media platforms to minimise harms facing young people would be better than an outright ban.
Support for a youth social media ban has picked up support among state premiers.
An ACT government spokeswoman said the territory recognised protecting young people from online harm was an important issue for the community.
"A nationally consistent approach to social media bans would be a practical outcome," the spokeswoman said.
"We understand the harm minimisation intent of the state premiers. The ACT will engage positively with the other states and the Commonwealth on the matter."
Catherine Page Jeffery, a lecturer at the University of Sydney whose research has focused on parenting and social media, said she did not support a ban, which would preclude young people from the benefits of social media.
"Social media seems to become a proxy for everything that's wrong with young people. And look, a lot of the risks found through social media are also found just generally in online spaces," Dr Page Jeffery said.
Dr Page Jeffery said social media platforms needed to be held to a higher standard and face tougher regulation, and parents needed to play an active role in helping their children to use social media.
"I think the answer to all of this is not just banning it, but actually putting more obligations on the platforms to have better safety measures embedded into their platforms. Making sure parents and their children have the skills and the literary to manage these online spaces together," she said.
"And then for parents to show an interest and to get involved and to help their children develop those skills."
Dr Page Jeffery said the harms and benefits of social media needed to be balanced.
"Young people face risks in all sorts of things that they do. And we shouldn't conflate risk with harm either because a lot of people navigate risks online without actually coming to harm," she said.
The NSW, Queensland and Victorian premiers united on Monday in a push to lift age minimums on major operators such as the Meta-owned Facebook and Instagram, and TikTok.
All of the platforms require users to be at least 13 years old, but that limit could be lifted to as high as 16 under a proposal from NSW.
South Australia is investigating if it can impose social-media bans for children aged under 14 and parental permission for those aged under 16 amid rising concern over harms of social media content on minors.
Prime Minister Anthony Albanese on Sunday said the federal government was trialling online age verification technology, and social media regulation was a national issue.
"Every parent is concerned about the impact of social media. I think it is the number one topic on the sideline of football, netball and school sport that will be conducted on any weekend in any part of Australia. And I think that it's time that we take strong action. But we want to make sure that that strong action is effective," Mr Albanese said in Gosford.
NSW Premier Chris Minns said that while his government would seek to introduce a ban on under-16s accessing social media if a federal ban did not happen quickly, he preferred a national approach.
Mr Minns said "obnoxious" social-media algorithms were "designed to keep children glued to the device rather than ripping it away and speaking with family and friends and getting out of the house".
Anne Twomey, a leading expert in constitutional law at the University of Sydney, said a Commonwealth ban would need to take into account Australia's implied right to free political communication.
"The point of the exercise is not to prevent young people from communicating generally or in relation to political matters, but more a matter of, presumably, some kind of protection," Professor Twomey said.
"So to the extent that there was some kind of burden on the implied freedom of political communication, a court would be looking to whether or not there's a legitimate purpose for the law."
If found to be legitimate, the court would consider if the law's impact on communication was proportional. Professor Twomey said that would likely be considered minimal.
with AAP
