Society and Culture
The Social Media Paradox: Is Banning Enough to Protect Children?
Meanwhile, a 2024 survey by Ipsos, a Paris-based market research firm, revealed that 65% of people in surveyed 30 countries support banning under-14s from accessing social media both in and out of school.

Ifeoluwa Siddiq Oyelami
Various reactions have trailed the recent legislation in Australia that bans social media use for children under the age of 16. Supporters, mostly concerned citizens, have called for similar measures in their own countries as they cite the growing risks associated with social media use among minors. However, some academics and analysts are sceptical about such a move as, they claim, it may fall short of addressing the real issues surrounding social media’s impact on children. Meanwhile, a 2024 survey by Ipsos, a Paris-based market research firm, revealed that 65% of people in surveyed 30 countries support banning under-14s from accessing social media both in and out of school.
Understanding the Law
In Australia, while the new legislation prohibits underage children from using social media, it is worth noting that enforcement rests squarely on the platforms themselves. Hence, social media firms found wanting could face fines of up to AUS$50 million (US$32.5 million). Parents and children, on the other hand, are exempt from penalties.
Interestingly enough, platforms are not required to collect identification during user registration. To close this gap, Australia’s eSafety Commissioner, Julie Inman Grant, has stated that artificial intelligence could be used to verify users’ ages. Speaking to American National Public Radio, she noted anticipating the use of an AI-based system that analyses hand movements to estimate a user’s age with a guaranteed accuracy rate of 99%. Of course, these assurances do not eradicate concerns about technology’s efficacy and broader implications.
To ban or not to ban?
The whole ban debate raises a fundamental question: do we truly need to ban social media for children? Critics, including Nicholas Carah of the University of Queensland, argue that such policies lack empirical grounding. Technology companies, meanwhile, warn that restricting children’s access to mainstream platforms may push them toward unregulated and potentially more harmful corners of the internet.
There are two points on which consensus might be found. First, governments have the legislative right—and arguably the duty—to safeguard their citizens, particularly the youth. Second, the debate hinges on whether social media is inherently harmful. While these questions deserve rigorous empirical investigation, many concerned parents and observers would argue that the evidence is already apparent. Social media platforms often propagate moral degradation, exposing children to inappropriate content while fostering unhealthy habits. Moreover, teenagers—and even adults—spend countless unproductive hours scrolling through feeds, with global average usage ranging from two to five hours per day.
A 2020 meta-analysis features the multifaceted risks associated with excessive or improper social media use among children and adolescents. These include mental health issues such as depression, anxiety, and addiction; physical health concerns linked to sedentary lifestyles and unhealthy eating habits; and body image struggles that can worsen eating disorders. Mentioned in the review are also behavioural issues like cyberbullying, online grooming, and premature sexual activity, as well as physical repercussions such as sleep disturbances, eye strain, and headaches. These are particularly important for those under 13 who face the added risk of cognitive and emotional growth impediments. Surely, these are problems of screen time rather than just social media.
While unsupervised social media use can pose significant challenges, is an outright ban the most effective solution? Could such a measure inadvertently create a “forbidden fruit” scenario, where children, once they reach the threshold age, may overindulge in social media as a newfound freedom? Much like teenagers who view turning 18 as a license to rebel against prior restrictions, could those turning 16 similarly misuse social media after years of prohibition? This raises questions about whether a ban addresses the root of the issue or merely postpones its consequences.
How ready are we?
Advocating for a ban on social media for children is simple. However, it comes with significant questions. Why exactly do we need a ban, and what alternatives are in place? Australia has long been a pioneer in legislating for online safety. Its eSafety Commission, established in July 2015, initially focused on protecting children but has since expanded its mandate to include adults. The commission engages in empirical research that informs policies like the one in question. However, how effective would “copy-and-paste” legislation be in countries that lack such robust research frameworks?
Perhaps we may start by considering the underlying motivations for any proposed ban. Are these efforts driven solely by concerns over its negative influence on children and the erosion of societal values? If so, are there assurances that children will have access to meaningful alternatives for play and learning outside the digital realm? Moreover, are the adults in their lives equipped to foster spaces that nurture creativity, curiosity, and engagement away from screens? If a ban is not the answer, can we instead focus on creating safer and more regulated spaces within social media platforms themselves?
Suppose we are concerned about young people wasting their time on endless reels and short, frivolous videos, we must ask: what alternatives are we providing outside social media that enable them to create and innovate? Can we reimagine the digital space as a meaningful and productive learning platform rather than passive consumption?
These are critical questions that require intentional effort from parents, educators, and governments—not mere populist rhetoric!
Children may not be the Problem
It is also pertinent to ask if regulation of children’s use of social media can ever be effective when many parents themselves are deeply entrenched in it. This echoes the concerns raised about television’s influence on children during the last century. At the time, attention was focused on children’s vulnerability to its effects, as illustrated by studies like the Bobo doll experiment, which linked violent TV content to aggressive behaviour in children. Yet, over time, television went on to shape adult behaviour, relationships, fashion trends, and even domestic life. Thus, Australian eSafety aptly pointed out, “Nothing can replace those vital conversations that help parents stay informed, set boundaries, and assist when something goes wrong.”
Ultimately, the most powerful influence on children comes from the examples set by parents and older siblings. Like the Prophet said, “All of you are shepherds, and each of you is responsible for his flock. A man is the shepherd of the people of his house, and he is responsible. A woman is the shepherd of the house of her husband, and she is responsible. Each of you is a shepherd, and each is responsible for his flock.”
Conclusively, parents need to be more involved in encouraging digital literacy. NGOs and government bodies can also help by starting campaigns that promote healthy use of social media. And as a society, we need to also encourage children to choose more physical interactions and socialisation, which are important for their overall growth.
Be the first to comment .