Debate to ban social media presents a choice between liberty & paternalism
Podium: Are we ready for the Digital Curfew?
Updated At : 07:56 PM Jul 21, 2026 IST
Photo for representational purpose only.
Advertisement
The debate over banning children under the age of 16 from social media platforms is often presented as a choice between liberty and paternalism. In reality, it is nothing of the sort. The real question is whether a civilised society is willing to protect its children from platforms designed to exploit their attention and vulnerability.
Strikingly, the strongest evidence against these platforms comes from their own research. Internal studies by Meta, revealed by The Wall Street Journal in 2021, found that Instagram harmed the well-being of teenagers, particularly teenage girls. The research showed that the platform contributed to body image issues in one in three girls and was associated with increased levels of anxiety and depression.
The concerns do not end there. A BBC Eye investigation found that social media algorithms actively promoted child abuse material and pornographic content to young users. These platforms are not merely designed to keep users scrolling; their recommendation systems can expose children to disturbing, explicit and deeply harmful content in an effort to maximise engagement. Such material hangs over countless young users each time they log on for what may seem like a harmless scroll.
Many argue that any ban would be easy to bypass through false birth dates or virtual private networks (VPNs). That may be true. However, the case for restricting social media use remains compelling. A ban may not eliminate the problem entirely, but it can still reduce harm. After all, half a loaf is better than none. The cost of inaction is simply too high. The ban should stand.
The writer is a Class XI student at Carmel Convent School, Chandigarh
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Copyright © The Tribune Trust, 2024
Designed and developed by : 
