Governments worldwide are debating whether limiting access to social media can protect children from online risks. Australia has taken one of the strongest steps to restrict social media for children under 16 by proposing mandatory age verification and fines for non-compliant platforms. Likewise, the Netherlands and Malaysia are considering similar measures. These moves have sparked global discussions about whether age-based rules are practical and effective in improving online safety. The debate is especially important for countries like Nepal, where access to devices differs widely, and enforcement remains difficult.

Supporters argue that restricting social media access can reduce children’s exposure to harmful content, grooming, manipulation and data risks, noting that young people are less equipped to handle these dangers.

However, age restrictions alone may not solve the broader problem. The following cases from Nepal help illustrate the challenges. Consider Aakriti, a 14-year-old student who uses her mother’s phone to access social media because she has no device of her own, reflects the reality for many children in Nepal. Aakriti represents many children who do not have personal devices, yet still access social media through family phones. Even with age restrictions or bans, young people can still get online through family accounts, which means such policies have a limited effect.

The 2025 social media ban

On September 1, Nepal banned 26 social media platforms for failing to register with the country, but the move backfired. Teenagers and young adults quickly bypassed the ban using VPNs, and platforms like Discord became hubs for organising the Gen Z movement that ultimately toppled the government. Young people even held a vote on Discord to choose a new prime minister. The attempt to control online spaces ended up driving more young people into the movement.

These cases show that restricting children’s use of social media is complex, especially in low and middle-income countries. Where access is hard to control, children often find alternative routes online, and bans can produce unintended consequences.

Concerns about age restrictions

Many individuals and organisations have expressed concerns about Australia’s decision. One major concern is that age verification may require collecting large amounts of children’s data, which raises questions about privacy and security. If platforms begin relying on ID scans, biometrics, facial recognition or behavioural tracking, we must ask where this data will be stored and who will protect it from increasingly sophisticated criminal networks powered by AI.

Several countries have already experienced breaches of national ID and biometric databases, and centralising children’s data would create an especially valuable target for traffickers, child sexual abusers and organised criminal groups. Poorly designed verification systems could expose children rather than protect them.

There is also a risk of digital authoritarianism, as age-verification tools could expand into behavioural monitoring and identity tracking if not tightly regulated. Any policy must therefore balance safety with children’s right to privacy, ensuring that protective measures do not become mechanisms of surveillance or harm.

The restrictions could hinder digital inclusion and limit young people’s education opportunities, especially as so much learning now takes place online. Moreover, the restrictions may push children to unsafe platforms or private online spaces where risks are higher and oversight is weaker. Social media is also a space where children learn, express themselves and build digital skills. Limiting access may not be the best long-term strategy.

These concerns reflect the need for policies that protect children while still allowing them to engage safely in digital environments.

Young people’s voices matter

Australia’s decision to restrict social-media use for children under 16 has generated considerable debate, yet the voices of young people are often missing. This absence is significant because research consistently shows that involving young people in policymaking leads to better decisions, protects their rights and supports their wellbeing in the digital world.

Priya Bhusal, a 16-year-old student from Butwal, says, “The Australian government’s decision to restrict social media for under-16 teens seems to be a wrong step.” She thinks restricting access to social media would mean restricting teens like her from finding out about the new ideas, inventions, norms, cultures and values around the globe.

Regarding the Australian government’s decision, a group of 14 researchers from the Digital Media Research Centre in Australia conducted a study with 86 children aged 12 to 15 years. The researchers asked them a key question: What do young people think about the proposed social media ban?

They explained that they use social media to gain knowledge, stay updated and build new skills. They also expressed a wide range of views about social media and the proposed ban, emphasising that their experiences are varied and should not be treated as uniform. Many children said they felt adults misunderstood their experiences. As one 13-year-old boy told, “I think my parents don’t really understand; like they only understand the bad part, not the good side to it.”

While they want social media to be safer and better designed, most do not believe the under-16 age restriction is the right solution. They also noted that there has been a lack of conversation or little support to help them after the policy comes into effect on December 10.

Best interest of the child

Restrictions alone are unlikely to prevent online abuse, exposure to harmful content or grooming because the digital ecosystem is vast, fast-moving and too adaptive for simple bans to offer lasting protection. Even in countries with strict rules, teenagers often find alternative ways to get online, whether through shared devices, borrowed accounts, VPNs or new platforms beyond regulatory reach.

Social media restrictions may offer some benefits, but they are not enough on their own. The experiences of Aakriti and Nepal’s 2025 social media ban show how limited such measures can be in practice. Protecting children online requires a mix of safe technology, digital education, family guidance and supportive communities.

Effective online protection requires strong safety measures from technology companies backed by clear regulation, including better detection of grooming, harmful algorithms, impersonation and age-inappropriate content. Digital safety education for children, young people, parents and teachers is essential, as knowledge provides lasting protection compared to bans. Likewise, law enforcement needs stronger training and resources to investigate online crimes, particularly grooming and sexual exploitation. Alongside this, investing in sports, art and other offline activities can offer healthier alternatives and support children’s wellbeing. Parents must stay aware of the content their children consume and the people they interact with online to help keep them safe.

Children need digital spaces that are safe and developmentally appropriate, not simply restricted. Policies should be shaped with children in mind. They should focus on education, enforceability and address the structural causes of harm. The real aim is to improve the quality of the online environment where children already learn, connect and grow.