Digital curfews: Mentor, don’t ban

Blanket prohibitions carry intent, but real solutions are in building digital literacy and safer platform design

In a move reflecting growing global anxiety over the ‘TikTok brain’, the Karnataka government is mulling a blanket ban on mobile phone use for minors under 16 due to parental concerns about social media addiction among children. The concerns driving this proposal are undeniably valid and are backed by recent national data. The ASER 2024 report found that 76% of children aged 14-16 use smartphones for social media, while India’s Economic Survey 2025-26 identified digital addiction among children and youth as a growing concern, linking excessive use to reduced focus, sleep disruption, and weaker academic performance.

There is a scientific basis for this. Neuroscientific research has consistently shown that the prefrontal cortex, which governs impulse control and judgment, continues to mature through adolescence. At the same time, digital platforms are designed around persuasive features such as infinite scroll and variable rewards that can intensify compulsive use.

These concerns justify intervention, but they also demand the right kind of intervention. A blanket ban may reduce exposure temporarily, yet it leaves unanswered the deeper question of how young people develop the digital judgment and self-regulation required of responsible citizens.

A blanket ban assumes that age 16 is a magical threshold where responsibility suddenly appears. In reality, responsibility is a muscle, not a switch. If a child is cut off from the digital world until age 16, that child may enter digital spaces with less familiarity, weaker experiential judgment, and fewer internalised habits of self-regulation. The absence of gradual exposure may leave young people less prepared to identify misinformation, respond to cyberbullying, and moderate their own consumption.

Furthermore, the socio-economic reality of Karnataka makes the risks of a blanket ban more uneven than they first appear. The ASER 2024 report also found that 57% of children aged 14-16 used a smartphone for an educational activity, which underlines how phones are already part of the learning ecosystem for many adolescents. That dependence is often sharper in rural settings, where, as experts have pointed out, many students rely primarily on mobile phones to access digital content, while children in better-resourced urban homes may have laptops or tablets. The burdens of a blanket ban are therefore unlikely to be distributed equally, and even a well-intentioned ban can widen existing inequalities in access to education and in how children are prepared for a digital society.

Safeguards and civics

Even if the government were to consider a direct social media ban, the state would confront both legal and practical constraints. Legislative competence to regulate the internet and communication infrastructure rests with the Union. Moreover, attempted restrictions remain inherently fragile. Digitally savvy users can readily bypass barriers through Virtual Private Networks (VPNs) or false age declarations. Australia’s recent social media ban has likewise drawn attention to persistent challenges of implementation, age assurance, and platform compliance.

Therefore, instead of a digital curfew, the state should pursue a harder and more effective path by combining digital literacy in schools with advocacy for safer platform design and limited age-calibrated exposure. First, the policy focus must shift from the minors to the digital ecosystem itself. Karnataka can play an important role by advocating for stronger national safeguards that limit addictive algorithmic features for minors and encourage age-appropriate design. Such measures align with the spirit of the Digital Personal Data Protection (DPDP) Act, which recognises children as a protected class.

Second, the government must integrate digital hygiene into the state’s school curriculum. Just as civics explains how democracy works, digital civics should explain how the internet works. Students need to learn how to spot rage-bait, verify deepfakes, and understand that their attention and data are valuable commodities. This kind of training is not only about adolescent well-being, but also about building habits of verification, restraint, and scepticism early to build long-term resilience in a country where online scams, misinformation, and financial fraud increasingly target older adults.

The current status quo, where minors have unrestricted access to some of the most addictive algorithms, is unsustainable. But prohibition is a blunt instrument; it may delay exposure, but it cannot build judgment. Critical thinking, self-regulation, and digital literacy can protect children long after any curfew ends. A responsible citizen is someone who knows how to use the internet without losing oneself in the process.

For a state shaped by the digital economy, the stronger legacy will lie not in banning technology for minors, but in teaching them how to use it responsibly.

(The writer is a lawyer and development consultant)

Disclaimer: The views expressed above are the author's own. They do not necessarily reflect the views of DH.