Mentor’s Comment

The debate on banning social media for minors has intensified following policy moves globally and in India. The article argues that prohibition is a simplistic response to a complex structural problem. It cautions against moral panic-driven regulation and instead calls for building a healthy digital media ecosystem grounded in accountability, research, and child protection safeguards.

Why in the News?

The issue gains prominence due to a growing global shift toward restricting adolescent access to social media platforms. In 2024, Australia passed a law prohibiting anyone under 16 from holding accounts on major platforms such as Instagram, TikTok, YouTube, Snapchat, and X. It mandates age verification and imposes fines up to $50 million for non-compliance. In February 2026, Spain announced similar restrictions. These measures represent one of the first large-scale legislative attempts to exclude minors from digital platforms entirely. In India, policymakers are considering comparable measures amid rising concern over screen addiction and adolescent mental health.

Why is a Social Media Ban Being Considered?

1. Adolescent Mental Health Concerns: Links heavy social media use with anxiety, depressive symptoms, self-harm, and body image dissatisfaction. Evidence remains associational, not causal.
2. Screen Addiction Narrative: Frames excessive digital engagement as primary cause of adolescent distress.
3. Policy Response Shift: Australia’s 2024 legislation bans under-16 accounts on major platforms. Imposes mandatory age verification and fines up to $50 million.
4. International Replication: Spain (February 2026) announced similar prohibition for minors under 16.
5. Moral Panic Dynamics: Political responses seek visible control measures during public tragedies, producing symbolic crackdowns.

Does Evidence Justify Blanket Prohibition?

1. Systematic Reviews: Identify small but consistent associations between heavy usage and mental health challenges.
2. Gendered Impact: Greater vulnerability among adolescent girls.
3. Absence of Causality: Studies do not establish direct cause-effect relationship.
4. Indian Context Gap: Limited domestic studies, but global findings signal caution in usage effects.

Why May Bans Fail in the Indian Context?

1. Enforcement Constraints: Adolescents evade age restrictions easily.
2. VPN Circumvention: Strict age-gating pushes minors toward unregulated platforms or dark web spaces.
3. Encrypted Migration: Movement to platforms like Instagram or encrypted environments reduces oversight.
4. Mass Surveillance Risk: Identity verification frameworks risk linking minors’ online activity to government databases.
5. Gender Inequality Reinforcement: 33.3% of women in India use internet versus 57.1% of men. Bans may disproportionately restrict girls’ mobility and digital access.
6. Community Loss: For queer and differently-abled teens in small towns, social media provides safe communities otherwise unavailable offline.
7. Democratic Deficit: Policy decisions occur without consulting adolescents directly.

What Structural Problems Are Being Ignored?

1. Platform Design Incentives: Engagement-maximizing algorithms encourage addictive use.
2. Profit Model Dependence: Revenue tied to user attention and data extraction.
3. Content Moderation Gaps: Inconsistent enforcement and opaque governance structures.
4. Digital Protection Weakness: India’s Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 relies on parental consent gating, which may result in exclusion or false declarations.
5. Under-Regulated AI Integration: Generative AI chatbots integrated into platforms increase exposure to unverified health advice and harmful interactions.
6. Emerging Risks: AI-related cases include sexualised interactions with minors and alleged self-harm inducement.

What are the Policy Alternatives Available?

1. Platform Accountability: Legally enforceable “duty of care” obligations.
2. Independent Regulation: Oversight by expert regulators, not solely by the Ministry of Electronics and IT.
3. Research Infrastructure: Longitudinal studies on children’s digital well-being across class, caste, gender, and region.
4. Notice-and-Repair Model: Move beyond takedown mechanisms to systemic platform design reform.
5. Healthy Media Ecology: Balance innovation with child safety and democratic transparency.
6. Avoid Illusion of Control: Recognize that bans offer symbolic reassurance without systemic resolution.

Conclusion

Blanket prohibition simplifies a complex structural issue. It risks deepening inequalities, encouraging circumvention, and expanding surveillance frameworks. Sustainable reform requires platform accountability, independent oversight, evidence-based research, and systemic redesign of digital environments.

Get an IAS/IPS ranker as your 1: 1 personal mentor for UPSC 2024

Attend Now