Governments stepping in to create social media safety nets

Recent reports that the central government is considering placing restrictions on social media access for children below 16, even as Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh have enacted such laws, come in the wake of similar efforts elsewhere. At the World Government Summit in Dubai in February, Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez announced that Spain will ban access to social media for those under sixteen.

Prefacing this with “Our children are exposed to a space they were never meant to navigate alone,” he argued that they do not have the option of switching off from social media. In December 2025, Australia mandated (some) digital platforms to take ‘reasonable steps’ to deny accounts to children below sixteen and delete, not merely deactivate, their existing accounts. Platforms have to comply while not using government IDs as proof of age. The onus of compliance is on the platform, using suitable age-determining technologies. The Spanish law will perhaps also have similar provisions.

Organised attempts to wean children from social media have been gaining ground. Several countries, including South Korea, Brazil, France, Singapore and several states in the United States, have banned or severely restricted the use of smartphones in schools. Britain requires platforms to run the highest privacy settings for children under eighteen. Singapore mandates the App Store and Play Store to prevent minors from accessing age-inappropriate apps. 

The legislations in Australia and Spain, which will operate at the intersection of law enforcement, technology, and perhaps social engineering, are bold experiments. Placing the onus of determining a user’s age on the platform has, predictably, drawn pushback from all and sundry.

‘Assault on free speech,’ difficulty of enforcement and negative impact on digital literacy are some of the attack lines that have been trotted out. Lawmakers, however, are aware of these challenges and appear prepared; their stated objective of introducing friction to social media access seems achievable. The platforms’ plea for more study and care in crafting legislation seems ironic; if “move fast and break things” can be the motto for the goose (company), it can be the motto for the gander (legislation). 

There is increasing, arguably overwhelming, empirical evidence of the negative impact of social media on cognition, educational achievement, and happiness, especially among children. Jonathan Haidt, Stern School psychologist and professor of business, is among those sounding the alarm. In Anxious Generation, he makes the case that smartphones and social media have been harmful to young women by making them more prone to anxiety and to young men by making them more afraid to step into the ‘real world’.

The introduction of the front-facing camera in the smartphone—the ability to take selfies—is considered an inflection point in this behavioural trend. It is tempting to draw a parallel with Ralph Nader’s Unsafe at Any Speed, published during his fight for increased automobile safety in the 1960s. This played a major role in changing public expectations and corporate culture towards safety. During this fight, the pushback by General Motors, their attempts to discredit him (not his findings), and later public acceptance of his claims and demands are evocative.

Another Stern School professor, Scott Galloway, is critical of the business model of these companies, characterising them as being built on enragement, the easiest pathway to engagement. He argues that algorithm-induced engagement on these platforms is similar to habit-forming consumption of tobacco and drugs. Strongly disagreeing with the claim that Big Tech is too complex to be regulated, he advocates increased barriers on social media for the young, much like in the legislation mentioned earlier.

Echoing this, Vivek Murthy, former US Surgeon General, argues that social media is a public health emergency and advocates use of warning labels on social media platforms akin to that on tobacco products. Courts and juries in California and New Mexico, among others, appear to be seeing the parallel and are awarding damages to plaintiffs against social media platforms.

Therein lies another parallel from recent history. Cigarettes were designed to efficiently deliver the nicotine kick; their advertisements targeted teenagers expecting to acquire lifelong consumers. Public health advocates had to point to numerous studies about the linkage of tobacco use to cancer and also dig up studies by the companies themselves to convince governments and the public about tobacco’s health risks. Perhaps déjà vu all over again. 

Tristan Harris, a former Google developer and co-founder of the Centre for Humane Technology, calls for ethical development and putting guardrails by design to the use of social media. Perhaps that is a bit too much to expect; a company that started out with “Don’t be evil” driving its employees’ code of conduct has diluted it beyond recognition. 

Vivek Murthy’s demand that ‘safety by design’ should be legislated is achievable. An important aspect of the algorithms used by these companies is a performance score (also called an ‘objective function’) that is optimised. Carefully choosing this score so as not to do evil is possible. Competitive pressures make that hard. Legislation seems like an option worth trying. Even if it is done a little too fast and may seem to break a few things. 

(The writer teaches at IIT-Bombay. All opinions are personal)

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