Benefits and risks of restricting social media access for children | Experts’Opinions

To ban or not to ban children’s access to social media? This question has lately sparked intense debate among decision-makers, international organizations, parents, and—of course—children themselves. After Australia became the first country to legislate a social media ban for those under 16, several governments in Europe and Asia, as well as the United States, have begun considering similar measures. Social media supporters claim that imposing a ban will deprive children of benefits such as connectivity, access to information, creativity, and other aspects. Opponents highlight the risks associated: children’s vulnerability to violent content, negative implications on mental health and wellbeing. We asked development professionals to share their opinions on this complex issue and here is what they had to say.

DevelopmentAid: What are the main benefits and risks of restricting social media access for children and adolescents in developing contexts?

“Social media restrictions such as Australia’s Social Media Minimum Age (SMMA) offer valuable starting points for making children’s best interests a primary consideration in relation to the digital environment. By legally restricting account creation, SMMA, for instance, highlights the need for child protection, raises parental awareness, and encourages safer platform practices. This could potentially limit early exposure to harms in contexts like Australia, where resources are more readily available. But even when implemented in good faith, these social media restrictions may not have longstanding benefits. Early evidence shows that despite the Australian ban, around seven in ten children remain active on major platforms with no notable reduction in cyberbullying or image-based abuse. In developing contexts, these challenges are likely to be even more pronounced. While laws such as Kenya’s Data Protection Act, Indonesia’s ban on social media for under-16s, Malaysia ban on under-16 accounts and India’s proposed ban for under-16s may offer a starting point for protecting children online, limited regulatory capacity and weaker enforcement mechanisms reduce their effectiveness. Beyond implementation challenges, social media restrictions raise human rights concerns related to the children they purport to protect. There has been criticism around how restrictions compromise children’s freedom of expression and fail to address the root causes of online harm, such as addictive platform design and lack of media literacy. This will likely drive children to hide their use of the internet and limit their participation in the digital world, UNICEF notes. While social media restrictions may offer limited short-term protective benefits, particularly in well-resourced settings, their overall effectiveness is constrained by enforcement challenges, even in countries like Australia. In developing contexts, these limitations are compounded by weaker regulatory systems, lower digital literacy, and patterns of state control over digital spaces. Such restrictions often fail to address the root causes of online harm and may undermine children’s rights to information, expression, and participation. In Uganda, the court action in nullifying an Act that purported to protect children online showed that poorly designed ‘protection’ laws can undermine both rights and effective safeguarding. In their current forms, digital restrictions do not seem to carry much benefit for children, adolescents and young people…. unless they are reformed based on good practice including learning from and avoiding some of the criticism leveled against restrictions like those in Australia.”

“Restricting access can deliver immediate protective benefits. UNICEF’s State of the World’s Children 2025 highlights rising levels of anxiety, sleep disruption, and cyberbullying linked to intensive social media use. Age-based limits can reduce exposure to harmful content and addictive design features, while giving governments space to strengthen child protection frameworks. Yet in developing contexts, the risks are equally significant. Social media often serves as a primary gateway to digital literacy, civic participation, and even economic opportunity. OECD’s Childhood in the Digital Age (2025) warns that unequal access to digital skills entrenches labor market disparities. Blanket bans risk excluding vulnerable youth who rely on mobile platforms for learning resources and community support, thereby widening the digital divide.”

“Benefits and Risks: The primary benefits include rapid information access and connectivity. Conversely, the risks involve cyberbullying, misinformation, and mental health struggles.”

DevelopmentAid: What role should international development actors play in shaping regulations on youth social media use?

“A lot of work is ongoing around digital safety and how to protect young people. The UN  and other players, including the OECD, are supporting several initiatives across the globe, including international frameworks to help guide governments’ efforts to safeguard children in digital environments. This work should be amplified, focusing on lessons learned, dropping what doesn’t work, and replicating good practice as applicable to different contexts. In addition, there’s need to:

Address global inequality in policy-making

In developing contexts, given the spirit in which many social media restrictions are imposed, there is a need for stronger human rights advocacy. This should involve civil society actors, supported by the international community, to speak out against restrictive measures. There is also a need to raise awareness of existing policy commitments and hold governments accountable for fulfilling them. For instance, under its Vision 2040 and the National Development Plan, Uganda has established a comprehensive ICT and digitalisation framework, anchored in the National ICT Policy (2014) and the Digital Uganda Vision 2020. While these policies position ICT as a key driver of economic transformation and inclusion, their implementation remains weak and usually overshadowed by politics and governance issues. More emphasis should therefore be placed on aligning current practices with these national commitments. This includes questioning narrow restrictions that primarily serve state interests, rather than the broader needs of the population, especially young people.

Invest in digital literacy systems

Support education systems to integrate digital literacy more effectively, including teaching critical thinking, online safety, and content evaluation. Universities and other academic institutions also have a role to play by embedding digital literacy into course units, ensuring that young people have more opportunities to build these skills. Strengthening digital literacy in this way can help counter the negative effects of online harm.

Strengthen private sector involvement

The private sector should play a more active role in advocating for the right to internet access. Companies must also take greater responsibility for how their platforms are designed and governed. Platforms should be intentionally designed to be child-friendly, with measures that protect the privacy and integrity of young users. This includes implementing age-appropriate settings and content filters, ensuring transparent data protection practices, and putting in place effective systems to address harmful content such as hate speech and cyberbullying.”

“International development actors have a catalytic role in ensuring that regulations are both evidence-based and rights-focused. Their strength lies in convening governments, civil society, and technology companies to design balanced frameworks that protect children while enabling their participation in the digital world. Beyond advising on safeguards, these actors can mobilize resources to expand digital literacy and equitable access, preventing vulnerable groups from being excluded. By embedding social media governance within broader development agendas—education, inclusion, and human rights—they help ensure that restrictions do not merely limit risks but also open pathways for resilience and opportunity. In this way, development actors shift the debate from prohibition toward empowerment, shaping regulations that protect without silencing the voices of young people. The challenge is not simply whether to restrict, but how to ensure protective measures align with inclusion. Effective regulation must balance child safety with equitable access, guaranteeing that all young people have the opportunity to develop digital skills and participate meaningfully in society. With a balanced approach, protection can go hand in hand with empowerment, safeguarding health while supporting long-term equity and resilience.”

“Role of International Actors: These organizations should facilitate evidence-based policy frameworks and hold tech giants accountable for transparency, ensuring regulations are inclusive and do not infringe on the rights of the youth.”

DevelopmentAid: Could social media bans deepen inequalities in digital skills and limit future opportunities for vulnerable young people?

“Social media bans can deepen inequalities in digital skills and opportunities. The digital divide is already layered, with inequalities in access, skills, and outcomes depending on a country’s level of development. In many developing contexts, where governments are already struggling to prioritise digital inclusion, restrictions risk making these gaps even wider. In Uganda, for example, the country’s comprehensive ICT and digitalisation framework positions young people at the centre of a knowledge-driven and inclusive digital economy. However, social media bans in the country directly contradict these goals by restricting access and participation, and ultimately widening the digital divide. This contradiction is particularly stark in a country with one of the youngest populations globally, where over 70% of citizens are under 30. Young people are already digitally engaged, yet many feel excluded from decision-making. Youth in Uganda have expressed frustration about how restrictions limit their participation in global commerce. Research from the OECD highlights that digital skills are now foundational to economic participation. Social media bans reduce opportunities for young people to build essential digital skills, content creation abilities, and to participate in digital economies. Over time, this can limit their exposure to technological developments and weaken their employability. There is also a risk that restrictions reduce the incentive to invest in digital literacy, particularly where governments are wary of the influence of digitally engaged youth. The impact is even more pronounced for vulnerable groups. Young people in rural or low-income settings, as well as girls, already face barriers to digital access. Restrictions risk further excluding them from opportunities for learning and future economic empowerment.”

“Yes. In many developing countries, social media functions as a primary gateway to digital skills, networking, and economic opportunity. Removing access without providing alternatives risks reinforcing existing divides. OECD’s Childhood in the Digital Age (2025) underscores that unequal digital competencies translate into long-term labor market disadvantages. A blanket ban may unintentionally penalize marginalized youth who depend on mobile platforms for learning resources, civic participation, and community support. Instead of closing doors, policy should ensure that protective measures are paired with inclusive digital literacy initiatives. Otherwise, restrictions may safeguard health in the short term but entrench inequality in the long run.”

“Impact on Inequality: Yes, bans risk deepening the digital divide. Vulnerable youth who lack alternative educational resources may fall behind in acquiring the digital skills necessary for the modern workforce, creating a long-term economic disadvantage.”

DevelopmentAid: Should the priority be stricter platform regulation or stronger digital literacy and why?

“Because children cannot fully protect themselves online, and platforms actively shape online behaviour, regulation still matters. However, bans on their own fail to address underlying risks, are difficult to enforce, drive young users toward unregulated spaces, and reduce opportunities for learning and participation. Stakeholders therefore need to promote a more model that prioritizes digital literacy at its foundation, and backed by well-researched and stakeholder-informed regulations and protections. Countries that have invested in digital literacy provide evidence of what works and how this can be scaled. In Europe, Finland has integrated media literacy across its national curriculum and consistently ranks among the most resilient countries to misinformation. Estonia has similarly embedded digital education early, combining coding and critical thinking, resulting in strong digital skills among young people. In developing contexts, while approaches are still evolving, there are promising examples. Kenya’s National Digital Literacy Programme integrates ICT into schools, focusing on both access and skills. Rwanda has prioritised digital education and youth tech skills as part of long-term workforce development, while India has expanded digital skills initiatives through school-based learning and national campaigns. These efforts show that scaling is possible when digital literacy is embedded within national systems rather than treated as a standalone intervention. Across these contexts, successful approaches share common features: integration into formal education systems, early and continuous learning, alignment with national development goals, and a focus on both access and skills. Evidence shows that such models improve critical thinking, online safety behaviours, and, in the long run, long-term employability.”

“The priority should be a dual approach. Stricter regulation is essential to curb exploitative algorithms, harmful design practices, and unsafe content that undermine children’s well-being. At the same time, stronger digital literacy programs are critical to empower young people to navigate online spaces safely and critically. Regulation protects, but literacy equips. When combined, these measures ensure that children are shielded from immediate risks while gaining the competencies needed to thrive in a digital economy. In developing contexts, where social media often serves as the main gateway to digital skills, this balance is particularly important. Policies that focus only on restriction risk exclusion, while those that integrate regulation with literacy create pathways for resilience, inclusion, and opportunity.”

“Priority — Regulation vs. Literacy: While platform regulation is vital for safety, digital literacy should be the priority. Literacy empowers youth to critically evaluate content and navigate risks independently, which is more sustainable than censorship. A balanced approach is required. Stricter platform accountability must coexist with robust educational programs to ensure that the digital transition remains safe, inclusive, and empowering for all young people.”

See also: The challenges and the reforms of the education sector | Experts’ Opinions

In today’s digitalized world, social media is part of most people’s personal but also professional life. Many companies and organisations post their openings on social media, but it takes time to daily check their pages and find suitable positions. With the DevelopmentAid’s Individual Professional Membership, experts save both time and resources, gaining access to valuable information in a just a few clicks, such as: around 5,000 available jobs in international development, tenders and grants for individuals, salary trends, and contact information of major players in the sector, increased visibility and many more.