Children and their use of social media is becoming an increasingly challenging topic for parents and authorities everywhere in the world. Many European countries look to be edging closer to taking steps toward a broad social media ban for children, while in other parts of the world, especially the Middle East, there is less concern about the harm being caused. So, is there a need to regulate content, for young and old alike, to shield everyone from toxic online content or the damage caused by spending too many hours glued to screens?

In a move that could bring in an Australian-style ban, the UK is considering implementing a set of measures that will curtail social media access for children aged ​under 16. Already, the government has insisted it will close a loophole that leaves some artificial intelligence chatbots outside of safety rules as part of an effort to respond more quickly to growing digital risks.

Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s government hopes that an ongoing consultation process could lead to a ban on under-16s accessing social media, despite the fast-moving development in this sector, boosted by AI tools coming online, which would complicate any regulations. Any government action in this domain also risks causing new transatlantic tensions, as the US tech giants, with the White House’s support, would be unlikely to accept any curbs that might damage their business model. They will use the loose pretext that restrictions or even the moderation of content are effectively a curtailment of freedom of speech.

But will keeping children safe online be feasible through a ban? And in the absence of cooperation from the digital platforms, would any ban be effective? Then there is the question that, instead of limiting the protection from harm to under-16s, should the whole of society not have the right to safety?

While launching the consultation process last month, Starmer warned that no online platform should get a “free pass” when it comes to children’s safety. But as the technology in this sector moves faster than government institutions, one wonders if any new laws might become redundant before they are even enacted.

It is all well and good to set a high bar for compliance with a new set of online safety measures to protect children from the rampant emotional and physical harm enabled by social media platforms. And though the UK, like Spain, France and others, is willing to ban children from social media altogether — as well as other measures such as restricting infinite scrolling, preventing children from using virtual private networks to illicitly access pornography and limiting under-16s from speaking with online chatbots — one wonders if such actions will not fail on the basis that the technology affords savvy users the means to circumvent them.

Early findings from the monitoring of Australia’s ban shows that determined teenagers are finding ingenious ways to circumvent the rules, such as by making their faces appear older to beat the age verification system. Also, the definition of what constitutes social media is loose and whatever is left out, such as WhatsApp and gaming platforms, might seem harmless but can still be used for cyberbullying. And banning children from mainstream platforms will ensure they flock to more obscure ones that are always ready to welcome the increased traffic.

Then there is the problem of missing out. Many parents try to delay their children’s access to screens but quickly cave in for fear of their children falling behind. Those parents might be depriving their children of the benefits of social media, since, despite its drawbacks, this has also become a route to educate, broaden horizons and enrich youngsters’ online experience.

Determined teenagers will always find a way to overcome any ban. And the tech giants will always have a backdoor to keep their platforms available. I am minded to believe that a ban would be a good mission statement, but only to open up more avenues for legislators and regulators to engage with the tech companies to make their sites more suitable for various segments of society, not just the young. This would be in the hope that some form of moderation is introduced across the board, as well as access to data that could enlighten the debate in a scientific way about what is harmful and what is beneficial, especially for the most vulnerable.

Despite its revolutionary contribution to state and society, the digital realm undoubtedly has some downsides that can cause emotional and physical harm unless it is well governed. It is no secret that the use of social media is associated with higher risks of depression and anxiety, loneliness and bullying, regardless of the parental controls that are applied.

More than two-thirds of Britons and a similar number of Americans support restricting social media access for those aged under 16. But pushback is to be expected from the tech companies, while the Trump administration has made no secret of its disdain for regulations such as the EU’s Digital Services Act.

The tech giants’ reaction to Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez’s recent call to ban social media for children was, to say the least, immature and childish. Sanchez’s accusation that the platforms are places of “addiction, abuse, pornography, manipulation and violence” was based on facts, not fiction.

It is unfortunate that the US administration and America’s tech bosses have chosen to belittle the legitimate concerns expressed by health and education experts, as well as parents, which all point to endemic and toxic harm emanating from social media.

Let us agree here that governments and citizens ought to push back and not leave the tech bosses and their mentors unchecked to determine what is best for societies and for children in particular. Often, business models clash with the well-being of humans. Bans might be a first step, but ongoing monitoring, consultation and data collection are also needed, as well as pressure and lobbying. The alternative is to leave it to the tech giants to shield children and society and regulate themselves — and that would be delusional at best.

Mohamed Chebaro is a British-Lebanese journalist with more than 25 years’ experience covering war, terrorism, defense, current affairs and diplomacy.

© Eurasia Review