Enakshi Ganguly: Monitor Kids on Social Media, Don't Police Them

A friend was visiting recently. Her teenage son was at home. Every few minutes he called my friend to ask for access to his device, which is kept locked in a cupboard to regulate his usage. It is an ongoing struggle and negotiation.

On the other hand, there are parents for whom it’s a matter of pride to have gifted their child the latest tablet, an iPad or a smartphone. “It is a necessity if our child has to succeed in today’s world,” they say.

One of the most striking stories I heard was from a psychiatrist for kids. When she asked a parent about time spent playing with her young child, the mother was aghast. “Play with my child? Why would I do that? I take her to a playgroup. At home, I let her play with her device or watch something on it.” Clearly, she saw the device as a source of both knowledge and entertainment for her child.

The New Realities

There is no doubt that digital addiction, misinformation, online violence and bullying are now realities of everyday life. The influence of digital platforms has been so profound that we have witnessed teenagers dying by suicide after being denied access to a device, sexual harassment of girls by teenage boys—such as in the Boys Locker Room incident on Instagram—and even suicides following public shaming on social media.

The huge success of the Netflix series Adolescence shows how worried people across the world are about the impact of digital information on children. Almost all children are affected by the digital ecosystem in some way. This became especially evident after the Covid-19 pandemic, when access to devices and the internet became necessary for education and social interaction.

Recognising the seriousness of the issue, the Economic Survey of India 2025-26 has dedicated an entire section (458–465) to digital addiction. It notes that research on digital addiction highlights significant risks and mental-health consequences among the youth. Social-media addiction, the survey observes, is strongly associated with anxiety, depression, low self-esteem and cyberbullying-related stress. Multiple Indian and global studies confirm its high prevalence among those aged 15–24.

In response, there has been a sudden global surge in restrictions and bans on social-media use by children. Australia, for instance, has introduced a nationwide ban on social-media accounts for children under 16, while several other countries are considering or implementing similar restrictions. In India, the governments of Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh announced on March 6, 2026, that they would introduce restrictions on social-media use for children under 16 and under 13, respectively.

However, implementing such restrictions raises practical questions in a country where digital connectivity has expanded dramatically. Internet connections in India grew from 25.15cr in 2014 to 96.96cr in 2024. Today, 85.5% of households own at least one smartphone. In such a digitally integrated society, how feasible is it to enforce age-based bans?

Safety Nets

A quick online search also reveals the growing presence of digital-education platforms offering tuition services for children as young as those in Class 1, continuing through Class 12. Many parents prefer this arrangement because it allows children to stay at home, reduces travel time and costs, and enables parents to continue their work. Some also believe it is safer and provides better opportunities to monitor their child’s academic progress.

As early as 2021, the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child recognised the significance of the digital environment in children’s lives. In its General Comment 25, on children’s rights in relation to the digital environment, the committee noted that it had consulted over 700 children across 28 countries. While acknowledging the benefits of digital technology, it also urges governments to create legislative and institutional mechanisms to protect children from abuse and exploitation online.

On the fifth anniversary of the General Comment, 55 organisations worldwide are calling on governments to hold technology companies accountable. In India too, civil-society groups are circulating draft letters urging the government to take stronger action.

Interestingly, children who participated in the consultations for the General Comment emphasised the positive aspects of digital technology. Some said it enabled them to access information from around the world. Others said it helped them explore their identities.

One child even remarked, “When you are sad, the internet can help you see something that brings you joy.” It is difficult to argue with such sentiments. After all, we do want children to have access to information, opportunities for self-expression and moments of happiness.

At the same time, difficult questions arise. Are children able to process all the information they encounter online? Is relying on digital platforms for emotional comfort healthy in the long run, especially when the same platforms can also contribute to sadness, body shaming, depression and addiction?

As the series Adolescence suggests, many parents are increasingly clueless about the language, symbols or cultural codes used online, nor do they fully grasp the emotional and psychological impact these environments may have on their children.

A Balancing Act

Clearly, some form of intervention is necessary. Yet the lack of consensus over the most appropriate approach to protecting kids online remains a major challenge. In this context, governmental actions need careful examination. Are age-based bans and restrictions the right solution? And if so, how can they realistically be implemented?

Australia is an interesting example. The law does not penalise children under 16, nor does it punish their parents or carers. Instead, the government describes the measure as “not a ban, but a delay to having accounts”.

However, data from Australian show that over 70% children in the country are still accessing social media despite the ban.

Experience tells us that extreme penal measures rarely solve complex social problems. What may be more effective is sustained engagement with children, parents, teachers and caregivers. It requires constant monitoring without turning it into surveillance or policing—difficult, but essential.

(The writer is a development researcher and child-rights activist)