To Ban or Not to Ban: Children’s Digital Rights versus Social Media Restrictions

Today’s children are often referred to as ‘digital natives’, born into an evolving digital ecosystem. They are exposed to digital environments as early as 4 months of age, in stark contrast to the 1970’s, when the average age of initial exposure was 4 years. Highlighting the importance of digital technology, children shared: ‘With Digital technology (DT) … we can connect ourselves to the world’; ‘I can talk to my friends whenever and wherever I want to’; ‘We can get information from all around the world’; ‘We can share our opinions, thoughts, reactions, suggestions and problems’; ‘DT introduced me to major aspects of how I identify myself’; ‘When you are sad, the internet can help you see something that brings you joy.’

This is a special year for children’s rights in digital spaces. Firstly, the world is witnessing a global flurry of social media bans for children in 2026. After Australia set the precedent in December last year, other countries, such as India, Indonesia, and the United Kingdom (UK), have started emulating and deliberating bans and restrictions. Secondly, this year marks the fifth anniversary of the United Nations General Comment (UNGC) No 25 (2021) published by the United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC). The UNGC No 25 stipulates guidelines and states obligations regarding children’s rights in digital environments.

This essay evaluates the global push for social media bans, weighing the arguments for and against them, while examining how such restrictions impact children’s digital rights. Deconstructing the debate, I ask fundamental questions, including what is the ban about, why ban, how did we get here, who gets to decide, and most importantly—what do the children want?

Facets of children’s digital world

United Nations International Children’s Emergency Fund (UNICEF) broadly defines social media as digital platforms that allow user interaction and content sharing. Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, TikTok, YouTube, and other emergent platforms that integrate social and entertainment media qualify. Social media use is ubiquitous amongst adolescents. Evidence shows that it boosts children’s sense of connection and provides avenues for ‘social connectedness’. It facilitates communication, learning skills, and positively impacts education.

Despite these benefits, digital spaces also expose children to severe risks, such as social media addiction, cyberbullying, unrealistic beauty standards, decreased self-esteem, and online child sexual exploitation and abuse (OCSEA). Children worry that social platforms are a tool for predators to groom, exploit, and abduct them and want to know if they will be safe online. Rampant use of AI-generated content and fake imagery are fuelling a child protection catastrophe. Problematic engagement patterns further expose them to digital harm.

Prolonged screen time and subsequent exposure to harms online, particularly through social media, gaming, texting, and watching videos, adversely impact mental health. It can lead to depression, anxiety, eating disorders, attention deficit disorders, behaviour disorders, sleep disturbances, or suicide ideation, while hindering children’s social-emotional growth.

However, social media’s impact varies based on engagement patterns; one size does not fit all. For example, active participation on social platforms has been linked to reduced loneliness, whereas ‘doomscrolling’ may be detrimental. Children experiencing lower family communication, loneliness, emotional problems, attention deficit, and peer problems are more susceptible to social media addiction.

Global Policy Shifts towards Social Media Bans for Children 

In December 2025, Australia imposed a world-first social media ban, resulting in millions of children under 16 being locked out of their accounts. A rising crescendo of media campaign in Australia, supported by parents, politicians, educators, clinicians, and 1,27,000 petition signatories, backed the policy shift. With this law, the government placed obligations on social media companies to take reasonable steps to remove children below 16 from their platforms or face substantial fines.

Australia’s decision has created a ripple effect globally, serving as a worldwide test case. In India, conversation around social media bans intensified with the Economic Survey 2025–2026, which highlighted the rise in digital addiction among children. The survey explained ‘digital addiction’ as addictive behaviour linked to various devices and platforms, including smartphones, internet, gaming, and social media.

Following this, the Indian states of Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh imposed localised bans on social media. Karnataka has set up a digital detox centre and recently released detox policy guidelines, proposing mandatory screen-time limits for children to be administered by parents.

The Union Government is considering a separate law and guidelines for proposing age-based restrictions on social media usage by children. The National Human Rights Commission recently organised an open house discussion on social media bans for children.

Conundrum of Social Media Ban 

The Government Committee in Australia unanimously stated that a ban is not the panacea for online harms against children. There is no universal evidence to show that bans work. The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) report highlights that enforcing age bans and verifications are fraught with practical hurdles. Despite prohibitions for children under 13 in some countries, 2023 data reveals that 40 per cent of those aged 8–12 in the United States (US), 63 per cent of 8–11-year-olds in the UK, and 86 per cent of children under 13 in Canada use or hold accounts on at least one prohibited platform.

In Australia, children are already discovering ways to circumvent the ban. A ban shifts the focus from exploitative algorithmic and data practices existent on large platforms, which manipulate users by tracking cognitive biases, to access denial for children.

A major critique of the Australian policy is that it substantially fails to define the scope of social media, leaving exploitative platforms, such as ‘online gaming’, outside the purview of the law. Australia defined ‘age restricted social media platforms’ under Section 63C of the Online Safety Amendment (Social Media Minimum Age) Act 2024, initially covering only 10 apps, with the list continuously evolving. The country’s independent online safety regulator, eSafety, declares that it does not decide which platforms must be age-restricted, assigning that responsibility to the courts. This has led to ambiguity, making enforcement of the ban complex, weakening the objective of children’s protection, and leaving them to migrate to less-regulated spaces.

While Australia has placed the onus solely on tech giants to implement the ban, India is following a hybrid approach to impose restrictions through legal frameworks as well as multiple stakeholders, such as parents and schools. Australia has been transparent about the how and why of its decisions, with public consultations, detailed committee deliberations, and evidence-generation throughout the process. The UK government has also been actively conducting nationwide consultations to consider views of stakeholders. However, in India, the policy decisions are presently being deliberated at the macro level from a top-down view, with limited interactions with stakeholders, such as parents and children. Effective implementation and monitoring of the age-gating approach and digital detox in India also remain questionable.

Digital Rights of Children amidst Social Media Bans

Children perceive digital technology and access to it as a crucial need for realising their rights in the contemporary world. However, children worldwide are frustrated by its faults and feel it should serve them better.

Social media bans undermine their rights  and treat them as ‘objects of protection’ rather than right holders. Governments, policymakers, and parents fundamentally argue that a ban is to protect children and uphold their best interests. However, evidence suggests that ‘best interests’ in relation to the digital environment is being misunderstood or even misused. Best interests imply ‘full and effective enjoyment of all rights’ and ‘holistic development of the child’. An adult’s judgement of what is best for a child cannot override the obligation to respect the rights enshrined in the UNCRC. To honour this obligation in digital environments, governments should regard all rights of children, which include the right to seek, receive, and impart information; protection from harm; freedom of expression; and participation and transparency in assessment of their best interests. Fulfilling children’s fundamental digital rights requires integrating their views to navigate evolving risks across diverse contexts.

Bans warrant scepticism as they impact children’s freedom of expression, access to information, and right to participation, which enable them to freely express their views and ensure their opinions are accorded due weight. Are adults independently taking decisions regarding these bans or were children consulted?

It is ambiguous whether Australia or states in India rigorously consulted children or adhered to their views before imposing the ban and associated restrictions. Reports by the Office of the Commissioner for Children and Young People in Western Australia show that majority of the children opposed the ban and instead prioritised safety online. LGBTIQA+-identifying children voiced that online spaces fill an offline support void. The children reiterated that the ban denied them opportunities to stay connected to friends, access information, and learn.

Children have highlighted that means of leisure and play have changed in the digital age, altering social interactions. One of them also shared,

I think people stopped playing in the street not only because the internet came into being, but because the country and the cities got more violent as well. It may be interesting to evaluate not only the internet, but the environment in which people who use the internet most often are. Certainly, in the countryside, which is safer, children use the internet less than we do in the capital.

Way forward  

Children want governments, parents, digital technology companies, and teachers to support, promote, and protect children’s safe, equitable, and meaningful engagement with digital spaces. Children do not want a ban, but regulations. Blanket bans socially isolate them while leaving digital harms untouched. It is the responsibility of the government to have laws regulating digital platforms and place obligations on technology companies to make platforms safe for children. Children should not be banned from accessing social media, but companies that exploit them should be banned from having access to children.

A unified definition of ‘social media’ must be developed to avoid arbitrary implementation of regulations. UNGC No 25, a roadmap on children’s rights in the digital environment, must be made central to national conversations. Digital spaces should be ‘child rights by design’. Child rights impact assessments should be conducted to create a rights-respecting digital environment. The way forward is via systemic reforms and not access denial. It is crucial to incorporate children’s views and facilitate their participation in designing digital spaces and developing regulations, making digital spaces for and by the children.

There is a need to develop international frameworks to formulate stringent guidelines and make digital environments safe for children. This can be achieved through several measures. Parents must develop healthy alternatives for children’s social interactions. Urban and rural spaces must carefully design and invest in safe spaces that respect children’s right to leisure and play. Digital literacy for children, parents, teachers, and government stakeholders is essential to equip them with skills to combat harms online and support children. Cyber safety should be introduced as a compulsory module in school curriculums. More empirical research should be conducted to examine the correlation between children’s engagement patterns online and their social environment. Additionally, mechanisms for children to access justice and remedies for digital harm must be established.

Conclusion

Numerous issues adversely impact children’s mental health, and not all is down to social media. Excluding them from such platforms won’t stop online harm, as social media constitutes only a fraction of the digital environment. The sporadic evolution of threats and manipulative algorithms on and beyond these sites cannot be rendered harmless by blocking children’s access. While children today are recognised as ‘digital natives’, is it even pragmatic to think that we can block children from their spaces of existence? When the world is pushing for digitalisation of classrooms, integrating artificial intelligence into education alongside exposure to algorithms online, the question of whether to ban or not to ban social media appears irrelevant. The question should be how to make digital environments safe for children.

Social media bans must be rethought, and policymakers must move towards child-centric digital regulations.