A social media ban will not save our children

The Hindu

Context and Central Argument

The article intervenes in the growing global and domestic debate on banning or severely restricting social media access for children and adolescents, triggered by rising concerns over mental health, self-harm, addiction, and online abuse. Using recent tragic incidents and policy responses in countries like Australia and Spain, the author argues that blanket bans are emotionally appealing but structurally ineffective, and may even be counterproductive in the Indian context.

Key Arguments Presented

Moral panic is substituting for evidence-based policy
The article cautions against reactive policymaking driven by high-profile tragedies. While acknowledging the mental health crisis among children, it argues that simplistic solutions such as bans externalise blame onto platforms without addressing deeper social, familial, and institutional failures.

Bans are unenforceable and exclusionary in India
In a country marked by digital divides, weak enforcement capacity, and uneven parental supervision, age-based bans are likely to be arbitrarily enforced, pushing children towards informal, unsafe digital spaces rather than protecting them.

Social media platforms thrive on vulnerability, but bans ignore accountability design
The author accepts that platforms exploit adolescent psychology through algorithmic amplification, but contends that banning users does not reform these architectures. The real problem lies in design choices, not mere access.

Risk of surveillance-heavy solutions
Enforcement mechanisms such as age verification and identity checks may lead to mass surveillance, privacy erosion, and misuse of personal data—especially harmful for marginalised children.

Mental health harm is multi-causal, not platform-specific
The article stresses that anxiety, self-harm, and depression stem from a complex ecosystem involving family stress, academic pressure, gender norms, and social inequality. Social media acts as an amplifier, not the sole cause.

Author’s Stance

The author takes a firmly critical stance against blanket social media bans for children. While not defending Big Tech, the article rejects prohibitionist approaches and argues for regulatory, institutional, and social reforms that prioritise child well-being without curtailing rights or digital access.

Biases and Perspective

Rights-based and civil liberties bias
The article consistently foregrounds privacy, free expression, and children’s rights, sometimes at the expense of acknowledging parental and state anxieties about immediate harm.

Scepticism of state capacity
There is a clear assumption that the Indian state lacks the administrative and technical capacity to implement nuanced bans fairly, which may underplay the potential for incremental regulatory improvement.

Critical of techno-solutionism and prohibition alike
The author is equally distrustful of Big Tech self-regulation and blunt state censorship, positioning themselves in a reformist middle ground.

Pros and Cons of a Social Media Ban (as assessed)

Pros

• Signals seriousness about child mental health
• Politically and emotionally reassuring to parents
• Forces public debate on platform accountability

Cons

• Difficult to enforce in a large, unequal society
• Risks privacy violations through surveillance tools
• Pushes children towards unregulated digital spaces
• Does not address algorithmic harms or offline stressors

Policy Implications

Digital regulation
India needs enforceable duty-of-care obligations on platforms, focusing on algorithmic transparency, content moderation standards, and child-safe design.

Child protection framework
Mental health policy must integrate schools, families, counsellors, and public health systems rather than outsourcing responsibility to bans.

Data protection and privacy
Any regulatory approach must align with data protection principles, avoiding coercive identity verification mechanisms for children.

Platform accountability
Shift from user bans to design accountability, including restrictions on addictive features, default settings for minors, and independent audits.

Real-World Impact

• Children risk losing digital social spaces without gaining real protection
• Parents may experience false reassurance instead of meaningful support
• Platforms avoid structural reform while scapegoating access rules
• State institutions risk overreach without improving child welfare outcomes

UPSC GS Paper Alignment

GS Paper II (Governance, Constitution, Social Justice)

• Child rights and state responsibility
• Regulation of digital platforms
• Privacy and civil liberties

GS Paper III (Science & Technology, Internal Security)

• Social media and technology governance
• Data protection and algorithmic accountability

GS Paper IV (Ethics)

• Ethics of paternalism vs autonomy
• Responsibility of corporations towards vulnerable groups

Essay Paper

• “Technology regulation in a democratic society”
• “Protecting children without undermining freedoms”

Balanced Conclusion and Future Perspective

The article persuasively argues that social media bans offer the illusion of control without delivering real protection. While children undeniably face heightened mental health risks in digital environments, prohibition shifts attention away from the harder task of reforming platform incentives, strengthening social institutions, and addressing offline stressors.

The way forward lies in smart regulation, mental health investment, digital literacy, and platform design reform, not moral panic-driven bans. Saving children requires confronting complexity—not legislating it away.