UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer has proposed banning social media for those under 16, following similar moves in Australia, Indonesia, Malaysia, France, and Canada. These steps have sparked discussions in India, particularly at state levels, about limiting minors’ access to such platforms.
Arguments against bans claim they restrict an important source of information and learning. Yet the actual use of social media for education by children remains debatable, and platforms may not serve as suitable learning environments.
Research shows mixed findings on links between social media use and harm to young people. Responses vary widely across diverse social, economic, and digital settings. The priority should be pinpointing specific conditions of high risk and identifying the most vulnerable within the broad group of minors.
Bans for those under 16 face practical challenges. They rely on robust age verification, which could lead platforms to gather sensitive personal data. Teenagers often bypass restrictions using family members’ accounts or technical methods. Such workarounds might foster habits that extend to other rules later.
Weak verification and easy circumvention undermine bans. Australia’s experience indicates that age limits push minors toward lesser-known services whose safety remains unclear.
Instead of bans, attention should shift to platform governance. This focuses on how platforms create risk conditions. Concerns over minors’ safety provide a chance to strengthen oversight of platforms in India.
Some point to design features that encourage addiction. Yet dependence drives the attention economy, where platforms compete by building user habits. China’s approach of limiting screen time for children targets this directly by requiring platforms to enforce caps.
In less regulated settings, workarounds would likely persist, and caps also need age checks that enable more data collection. Access limits and platform rules differ in monitoring needs. Bans or caps involve enforcement at household and platform levels, requiring privacy safeguards.
An alternative is requiring platforms to disclose designs and safe-space measures. Governments may encounter barriers, especially if they depend on platforms for their own goals, raising risks of uneven enforcement.
Limiting access proves simpler for governments than ensuring platform accountability, making age restrictions more politically feasible.
