Answer

Introduction

A blanket social-media ban for minors is often termed “techno-solutionist” because it frames a deeply rooted psycho-social problem linked to parenting, mental health, digital literacy and school environment as one solvable merely through restrictive technology regulation, risking overreach, evasion and limited real behavioural change.

Body

Australia has proposed a nationwide prohibition on social-media access for users under 16, backed by mandatory age-verification systems. The policy, framed as a child-safety measure, has triggered significant debate over its feasibility, privacy risks, and whether such a blanket ban effectively addresses underlying mental-health and social challenges.

Analysis of Australia’s Move 

• Policy Simplification: Australia’s under-16 ban reduces complex mental-health and online-safety issues to platform-blocking rather than strengthening counselling and school-based interventions.
• Enforcement Difficulties: Age-verification tools are unreliable and minors can easily bypass restrictions using VPNs or alternative platforms.
• Over-regulation Risks: The blanket nature may also curb minors’ access to beneficial educational, civic and support content.
• Legal Pushback: The measure invites constitutional and industry challenge, slowing implementation.
• Precedent Concerns: Such a ban may encourage other governments to adopt similarly broad, non-contextual measures.
  Eg: Global commentary highlighted fears of copycat bans.

Associated Concerns

• Privacy Risks: Strong age-verification may require intrusive data collection, affecting children’s privacy.
  
• Digital Inequality: Marginalised teens may lose access to safe online spaces for learning and support.
  Eg: Concerns for rural/low-income youth.
• Platform Migration: Bans can drive children toward more dangerous, unregulated platforms.
• Ignoring Root Causes: Mental-health gaps, cyber-bullying support and parental awareness remain unaddressed.

India’s Approach under DPDP Act, 2023 

• Data-centric Safeguards: India avoids bans and instead mandates verifiable parental consent for processing a child’s data.
  Eg: Compulsory parental consent provisions.
• Behavioural Protection: The Act prohibits behavioural tracking, targeted advertising and profiling of children.
  Eg: Government notifications emphasise ban on targeted ads.
• Rights-based Structure: Focus is on children’s data rights access, correction and grievance redressal rather than restricting platform use itself.
• Accountability Mechanism: Penalties, reporting obligations and a Data Protection Board ensure compliance without needing blanket blocking.
  Eg: DPDP rules detail fiduciary responsibilities and penalties.
• Balanced Approach: India combines regulation with digital literacy and online safety campaigns instead of outright prohibition.

Conclusion

A sustainable child-safety regime requires balancing autonomy, privacy, wellbeing and digital empowerment. Instead of sweeping prohibitions, nuanced frameworks like India’s DPDP model show that calibrated regulation, parental participation, platform accountability, and psychosocial support create safer digital environments without excluding children from the benefits of the online world.

DOWNLOAD PDF