Back to Editorials
The HinduJuly 11, 2026

Fix the house: On social media, social media access

The more wicked the problem, the more the people yearn for a simpler solution. This tendency has complicated the public debate on how and how much social media harm teenagers. While the idea that these platforms were stoking a mental health crisis prevailed in several countries for long, researchers have now adopted a more cautious stance. Social media use and mental health are clearly associated — more so among girls — but how much of that is actually causal and in what circumstances is still being debated. Recently, Prime Minister Narendra Modi spoke favourably of Australia’s decision , in 2024, to ban social media access for those aged 16 and below . His words augur a similar ban in India, one that Andhra Pradesh and Karnataka have publicly mulled as well. However, Australian psychologists, digital health researchers, child-rights scholars, and online safety experts have criticised the ban because, while there is a credible body of evidence linking social media use and harm among children, evidence of a link between an age-based access ban and better mental health has been lacking. In the absence of a real-world precedent, Australia has effectively been conducting a natural experiment. And research has estimated that around 85% of 12-16-year-olds still use social media platforms. While some psychologists and advocacy groups have argued that waiting for perfect evidence to act would recreate the mistake governments made with tobacco, many experts believe that the state should drop the ban and instead adopt a stronger duty of care, include digital literacy in school education, restrict addictive user interfaces/experiences, mandate a chronological feed for minors, enforce stronger content moderation, improve privacy protections, and introduce effective parental controls. Most studies of adolescent harm due to social media have also been observational and thus susceptible to reverse causation (depressed teenagers may spend more time online) and smaller average effects; experts have also noted that hours per day is less explanatory than passive versus active engagement, participation in supportive versus hostile communities, and so on. Indeed, while social media use can disrupt sleep and increase exposure to cyber-bullying, addictive recommendation patterns, and content about self-harm and eating disorders, it can also help maintain friendships and explore one’s identity, offer peer support, and increase access to LGBTQIA+ communities and mental health information. The overall picture is mixed and the solutions are not simple. However, the first step could be: rather than regulate ‘who may enter’, governments should change how platforms operate. Published - July 11, 2026 12:20 am IST Read Comments Copy link Email Facebook Twitter Telegram LinkedIn WhatsApp Reddit READ LATER SEE ALL Remove Related Topics media / children / mental health / gender / Narendra Modi / Australia / India / Andhra Pradesh / Karnataka / psychology / healthcare policy / health / online / tobacco / Right to Privacy / parent and child / LGBT / government

Key GK Takeaways for CLAT
  • 1India's right to privacy was read into Article 21's guarantee of life and personal liberty by a nine-judge Supreme Court bench in Justice K.S. Puttaswamy versus Union of India in 2017, and any state-level social media ban for minors would have to satisfy the proportionality test that judgment established. Since information technology and telecommunications largely fall within the Union's legislative domain, states such as Andhra Pradesh and Karnataka would need central cooperation to enforce an age-verification mandate. This raises federalism questions about who ultimately regulates online child safety in India.
  • 2Australia's ban stems from the Online Safety Amendment (Social Media Minimum Age) Act, passed in November 2024 and enforced from December 2025, making it the first country to impose a blanket age floor of sixteen for major platforms. The United Kingdom's Online Safety Act, 2023 took a different route, requiring platforms to conduct risk assessments and deploy age-verification technology rather than banning access outright. India's eventual approach, whether closer to Australia's prohibition or Britain's regulatory model, will likely shape similar debates across other South Asian democracies.
  • 3India's existing regulatory scaffolding includes the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021, which already require large social media intermediaries to enable parental controls and address child sexual abuse material, and the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, which criminalises online exploitation of minors. The Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 goes further, mandating verifiable parental consent and barring targeted advertising directed at children. Together these instruments already impose real, if under-enforced, obligations on platforms without requiring an outright access ban.
  • 4The editorial's core statistic, that roughly 85% of Australian 12-to-16-year-olds continued using social media despite the ban, illustrates the gap between law on paper and enforcement in practice, since verifying age online remains technically porous. Research shows social media's mental health effects are more pronounced among adolescent girls than boys, though most peer-reviewed effect sizes remain small to moderate rather than large. Researchers such as Jonathan Haidt and Candice Odgers disagree sharply on whether screen-time hours meaningfully predict depression once confounding factors are properly controlled for.