In recent years, a quiet, but significant, shift has begun to take place worldwide.
Governments, once hesitant to intervene in citizens’ digital lives, are now stepping forward with an unexpected understanding that children need protection from social media.
Last December (2025), Australia became the first country in the world to ban social media for children under the age of 16, blocking access to major social media platforms.
Malaysia has announced a similar move, with a ban expected to take effect this year (2026).
Most recently, Norway’s Prime Minister has proposed legislation to prohibit social media use for those under 16, placing responsibility on technology companies to enforce age verification.
Across Europe, countries like Denmark, France and Poland are moving in the same direction, with proposals ranging from bans for those under 15 years old to stricter age-verification laws.
What we are witnessing is not policy coincidence; it is policy convergence.
The world is beginning to recognise a simple, but uncomfortable, truth that social media, as it currently exists, is not designed for children.
Parental supervision falls short
In Malaysia, the instinct has been to propose restricted access with parental supervision, rather than a full ban.
On the surface, this appears reasonable.
It preserves parental authority while acknowledging risk, but in practice, this approach is deeply flawed.
First, it assumes that parents are equipped to regulate highly sophisticated digital ecosystems.
This is unrealistic.
Social media platforms are not passive tools.
They are engineered environments designed to capture attention, shape behaviour and maximise engagement.
Expecting parents to consistently monitor and counteract these forces is akin to asking them to supervise a casino operating inside their child’s bedroom.
Second, parental supervision is uneven.
Some parents are vigilant. Many are overwhelmed.
Others are less digitally literate than their children.
This creates inequality in which a child’s exposure to harm depends not on policy, but on parental capacity.
Third, and perhaps most importantly, supervision does not neutralise the core psychological impact of social media.
Even under supervision, children are still exposed to algorithm-driven comparison, validation-seeking behaviour, addictive design features and distorted representations of reality.
Supervision may limit time; it does not fundamentally change the environment.
Negatively reshaping perception
The case for a total ban is not moral; it is developmental.
Childhood and early adolescence represent critical periods of brain development.
During this time, emotional regulation systems are still maturing, and identity formation is ongoing.
Reward pathways in the brain are also highly sensitive to feedback.
Social media exploits all three.
It offers instant validation through likes and shares.
It encourages constant comparison with curated, and often unrealistic, portrayals of life.
It rewards impulsivity and discourages sustained attention.
In doing so, it reshapes how young people experience themselves and the world.
Resilience, which is the ability to tolerate discomfort, manage frustration and recover from setbacks, requires exposure to real-world challenges.
It is built through relationships, failures and lived experiences.
However, social media creates an alternative environment in which discomfort is avoided through distraction, identity is constructed externally, and social interactions are curated.
In such an environment, resilience is not strengthened, but it is bypassed.
Driven by concern
The global movement toward stricter regulation is not happening in a vacuum.
It is a response to mounting evidence linking excessive social media use with anxiety, depression, sleep disturbances, body image concerns and addictive behaviours.
Australia’s landmark legislation was driven by precisely these concerns, with significant penalties imposed on companies that fail to prevent underage access.
Norway’s proposed ban reflects a similar rationale of protecting children from harmful algorithmic exposure and preserving the integrity of childhood.
Even in countries that have not yet implemented full bans, the direction is clear.
The European Parliament has debated raising the minimum age to 16, while several nations are exploring strict limitations or conditional access frameworks.
This is no longer about whether action is needed.
It is about how far we are willing to go.
A clear strategy
A total ban for those under 16 is certain to be criticised as extreme.
In reality, it is the more coherent and honest approach.
We already accept age-based restrictions in many areas of life.
For instance, children cannot drive or vote in elections.
They cannot purchase alcohol and tobacco products.
These restrictions are not seen as authoritarian.
They are understood as necessary safeguards during vulnerable developmental stages.
Social media, despite its intangible nature, is no less powerful in its effects.
A partial restriction sends a mixed message.
It acknowledges harm, yet permits exposure.
It places responsibility on parents, while allowing social media platforms to continue operating largely unchanged.
A total ban by contrast, establishes a clear societal boundary and shifts responsibility toward technology companies.
It also provides uniform protection across populations, signalling that childhood is worth safeguarding.
It also simplifies enforcement.
Instead of complex rules about supervision and conditional access, the message becomes clear that under 16 means no social media.
Arguments against
Critics often raise concerns about feasibility and unintended consequences.
One argument is that bans are difficult to enforce.
This is partly true. Age verification remains a technical challenge.
But this is not a reason for inaction.
It is a reason to demand better solutions from technology companies that have demonstrated extraordinary capabilities in data tracking and user profiling.
Another concern is that bans may push children toward unregulated or hidden platforms.
This risk exists, but it is not unique to social media.
We do not abandon laws against underage purchase of alcohol or tobacco products because some adolescents may still find access.
Instead, we combine legislation with education and enforcement.
A more philosophical objection is that bans limit freedom.
But children are not simply “small adults”. They are individuals in development.
Society has always recognised that certain freedoms must be introduced gradually, in line with maturity.
Reclaiming childhood
At its core, this debate is not about technology.
It is about the kind of childhood we want to preserve.
Do we accept a childhood mediated by algorithms, where identity is shaped by metrics and self-worth is tied to visibility?
Or do we insist on a childhood grounded in real experiences, which may be imperfect, but profoundly human?
Norway’s Prime Minister captured this sentiment succinctly when he emphasised the desire for “a childhood where children get to be children”.
That, ultimately, is what is at stake.
We are the first generation of adults tasked with raising children in a fully digital world.
There is no historical blueprint.
However, there is enough evidence and a global consensus that unregulated access to social media is harming young people.
Malaysia’s proposed restrictions are a welcome step.
But we should not stop halfway.
If we truly believe in protecting mental health, strengthening resilience and preserving the integrity of childhood, then we must be willing to take a clear stand.
Not partial restriction, not conditional supervision, but a total ban on social media for those under 16.
This principled boundary is necessary because childhood should not be outsourced to algorithms.
Datuk Dr Andrew Mohanraj is a consultant psychiatrist and the Malaysian Mental Health Association president. For more information, email starhealth@thestar.com.my. The information provided is for educational and communication purposes only, and it should not be construed as personal medical advice. The Star does not give any warranty on accuracy, completeness, functionality, usefulness or other assurances as to the content appearing in this column. The Star disclaims all responsibility for any losses, damage to property or personal injury suffered directly or indirectly from reliance on such information.
