The Social Media Dilemma: Parental Control Or Govt Ban, Who Should Protect Children

For 12-year-old Sumaira Bharti, a Class VIII student at Bal Bharati Public School, a blanket ban on social media is not the answer. “I think a complete ban is unnecessary,” she said, arguing that it would reduce opportunities to learn online while limiting interactions with friends.

Bharti, who lives in New Delhi, uses Instagram under parental supervision for educational content, anime edits and entertainment. “I believe children should be taught how to use social media responsibly with parental guidance instead of banning it completely."

Recently, a growing number of countries are moving to limit children's access to social media, turning what began as a conversation about online safety into a broader debate over the balance between state intervention and parental authority. With the United Kingdom (UK) joining Australia and France in pushing ahead with similar laws, India may soon have to confront the same questions.

In March this year, Karnataka announced plans to prohibit social media use for children under 16, while Andhra Pradesh proposed similar restrictions for those under 13. Union Information Technology Minister Ashwini Vaishnaw also confirmed that the Centre was discussing age-based restrictions with major social media companies.

"We are in conversation regarding deepfakes, regarding age-based restrictions with the various social media platforms, and what the right way to go is," Vaishnaw said during the India AI Impact Summit in February.

In India, rising smartphone ownership among children, increasing reports of cyberbullying and online exploitation, easy access to age-inappropriate content, and growing worries over excessive screen time have brought children's digital safety into sharper focus, even as the country has yet to implement the ban.

Bharti's mother, Hema Soni, told Outlook India that while she uses parental controls to limit her daughter's exposure to harmful content, she also believes social media has helped nurture her creativity. However, like many others, Soni also fears that blanket prohibitions could simply drive children towards secretive behaviour and the pursuit of alternative methods to bypass the ban can expose them to much more harmful content.  

"Parents should supervise their children's online activities, use parental controls, teach them about internet safety, and encourage responsible social media use instead of imposing a complete ban," she said. Notably, the Modi government’s deliberations raise the question of who appears to be capable of protecting children from the ill effects of social media: the state or parents?

For Apar Gupta, founder of the Internet Freedom Foundation (IFF), India has already answered that question through the Digital Personal Data Protection (DPDP) Act, 2023. The law, notified in 2025, requires parental consent before platforms can process the personal data of children below 18 years of age.

"A blanket ban would be like undoing a choice we have recently made," Gupta said, arguing that the legislation already places decision-making in the hands of parents rather than the government. Yet the recent trends have shown that the government believes that parental supervision alone may no longer be enough in an online ecosystem increasingly driven by algorithms designed to maximise engagement.

The Argument for Regulation

Australia and the UK have justified their restrictions by pointing to mounting evidence linking excessive social media use with mental health concerns among children. Governments have argued that children are increasingly exposed to cyberbullying, explicit content, addictive design features and unrealistic beauty standards, all of which can affect emotional and psychological development.

“Excessive social media use could affect both physical and mental health”, said Dr Rajesh Sagar, Professor of Psychiatry at AIIMS. He added that prolonged screen use can contribute to obesity and hypertension while also interfering with children's relationships with family members and peers, leading to greater perceived loneliness.

He also warned that excessive use may contribute to anxiety, depressive symptoms and impulsive behaviour. "There are other concerns about body image disorders," Dr Sagar said. "You want to be like a zero figure, you think that you are not good enough. There is also something known as body dysmorphic disorder. Which again can lead to a lot of mental health preoccupation," he said. 

These concerns have also found reflection in government policy documents. The Economic Survey 2025-26 highlighted growing concerns over "digital addiction" among children and adolescents, warning that excessive digital engagement could reduce academic performance through distraction, sleep deprivation and shrinking attention spans.

Taken together, these concerns form the strongest argument in favour of stricter regulation. If social media companies can not adequately protect children, governments argue, the responsibility falls upon the state. Notably, the push for stricter social media laws has also triggered a global backlash. Critics argue that age-based bans are difficult to enforce, unlikely to prevent determined children from accessing platforms, and could undermine young people's rights to information, expression and digital participation.

The Australia Conundrum And Indian Reality

Australia's experience has also exposed the limits of legislation. Six months after Canberra introduced its restrictions, a study published in the British Medical Journal found that nearly 85% of children aged between 12 and 15 continued using social media platforms.

Instead of reconsidering the policy, the Australian government responded by strengthening enforcement, doubling penalties on companies to nearly A$99 million and initiating legal action against platforms.

To Gupta, that response illustrates a larger problem. "Something is revealing in a law that does not work being met only with more force, because what tends to grow is not compliance but the apparatus around the rule," he said.

He also pointed out that the United Nations recognises children's right to access information online, cautioning against measures that rely heavily on identity verification and surveillance. The Australian experience also raises important questions over the practicality of the implementation of such restrictions in India, a country with a much larger population.

Even if India eventually adopts age-based restrictions, implementation presents unique challenges. India has more than 500 million unique social media users, according to DataReportal. Unlike in many Western countries, smartphones are frequently shared among multiple members of a household, making individual age verification considerably more difficult.

Dr Ramanand, Director of the Centre for Policy Research and Governance, questioned how blanket restrictions would function in households where parents and children routinely use the same device. He argued that awareness campaigns involving schools and educational institutions should accompany any regulatory intervention.

"If parents are aware that they can restrict the usage on the devices, but if they are not aware of it, then either you have to make them aware, or you have to think about another way," he said. Gupta also questioned whether age verification itself provides a durable solution.

Children may simply bypass restrictions using a parent's account or by entering false information, he argued. More sophisticated verification systems, meanwhile, often require collecting additional personal data, raising fresh privacy concerns.

Whose Decision Is It Anyway?

The debate ultimately comes back to where responsibility should lie. The DPDP Act already requires parental consent before platforms process children's data, a framework Gupta believes reflects Parliament's judgement that parents, not governments, should make decisions about children's online lives.

"What gets sold as child safety quietly turns into a standing system of identification and surveillance, with the state taking for itself a decision that has always sat with families and parents," he said.

That concern also resonates with children and their parents. As more and more countries join the conversation, the experts believe that the response should be shaped by evidence, local realities and the role of parents.

Dr Ramanand argued that governments often resort to "extremist steps" when they are unwilling to invest the time and resources needed for slower, more "liberal" solutions. Instead of relying solely on bans, he said, children should be taught how to use technology responsibly while also learning not to become dependent on it.

Apar Gupta offered what he called a "quieter path". He believed that rather than regulating children's access, governments could regulate the platforms themselves by limiting autoplay, reducing notification-driven engagement, strengthening parental controls and preventing recommendation algorithms from directing children towards harmful content.

"The harm lives largely in the design, so that is where the work belongs," he concluded.

Whether India chooses age limits or leaves more control with parents, a law alone will not settle the debate. The harder task will be keeping children safe from online harms without shutting them out of digital spaces that are now tied to learning, friendships and self-expression.