Thank you dear subscribers, we are overwhelmed with your response.
Your Turn is a unique section from ThePrint featuring points of view from its subscribers. If you are a subscriber, have a point of view, please send it to us. If not, do subscribe here: https://theprint.in/subscribe/
THE REAL TRENDING TOPIC
Fourteen-year-old Divya sat cross-legged on her bed, perfecting a dance reel on her smartphone. Her mother called her for dinner once, then twice, then a third time. Divya barely noticed. She was busy editing the video and checking how many people had viewed the previous one.
Thirty minutes later, after her mother’s patience finally gave way to a raised voice, Divya joined her parents at the dining table. She immediately propped her phone against the pickle jar and began checking her notifications.
Her father reached across, covered the screen with his hand and said, “Divya, look up. The real trending topic tonight is your mother’s biryani.”
Across the world, governments are increasingly concluding that Divya has become a public policy problem. Australia has moved to restrict social media access for younger users. The United Kingdom has now announced a ban for children under sixteen despite having previously pioneered child-centred digital regulation through its Age-Appropriate Design Code. Closer to home, Karnataka announced in its 2026–27 Budget that social media use would be prohibited for children under sixteen, although the details remain unclear.
The concern is not entirely misplaced. Researchers have linked excessive social media use among adolescents to anxiety, depression, poor sleep and body-image issues. Parents, teachers and policymakers therefore have understandable reasons to worry.
If social media is harming children, the solution appears obvious: keep children away from it.
History suggests matters are rarely so simple.
Governments have long responded to perceived social harms through prohibition. The most famous example remains the United States’ experiment with alcohol prohibition during the 1920s. Intended to create a healthier society, it instead fuelled bootlegging, organised crime and illegal drinking establishments known as speakeasies. Figures such as Al Capone built criminal empires supplying a demand that prohibition had failed to eliminate.
India’s experience points in a similar direction. Alcohol bans have often produced social benefits, particularly for poorer households, but they have also encouraged smuggling, corruption and lethal illicit liquor. The stringent NDPS Act enacted in 1985 did not eliminate demand for narcotic and addictive drugs, while restrictions on betting have done little to extinguish gambling. More often than not, prohibition drives demand underground rather than making it disappear.
Yet social media presents a challenge fundamentally different from alcohol, narcotics or gambling.
Unlike these substances and activities, social media is not merely a product. It is how many young people communicate, socialise, learn and entertain themselves. A teenager prohibited from accessing social media is not being separated from a single product. She is being separated from the peer networks, conversations and communities that increasingly shape her social world.
Parents can lock away alcohol and refuse to buy lottery tickets. It is harder to remove a device that doubles as a telephone, classroom, library, entertainment centre and social gathering place.
Nor is enforcement likely to be straightforward. Legislators often assume that a fourteen-year-old confronted with a social media ban will quietly close her account and move on. Experience suggests that many teenagers will discover a virtual private network (VPN) before their parents learn what a VPN is.
The danger is that prohibition may simply push social media use beyond the view of parents, teachers and regulators. A policy intended to make children safer could make their online activities harder to supervise. The problem would not disappear; it would become less visible.
The United Kingdom’s experience is instructive. Britain was among the first countries to require platforms to place children’s interests at the centre of digital design through its Age-Appropriate Design Code. Yet it has now concluded that regulation alone may not be enough and has announced a ban on social media access for under-sixteens.
Whether this shift proves successful remains to be seen. What it does demonstrate is the difficulty of regulating platforms whose business models depend on capturing and retaining attention.
This recognises an uncomfortable reality. Social media companies do not merely host content. They actively shape behaviour through notifications, recommendation engines and endless scrolling features designed to capture attention. If policymakers are concerned about children’s wellbeing, these systems deserve at least as much scrutiny as the children using them.
Divya’s father would probably welcome such an approach. Like millions of parents, he is not seeking to abolish the internet. He would simply like his daughter to finish dinner before discovering that someone she has never met has liked her latest video.
The question is not whether children should be protected from social media. The question is whether governments should protect them by regulating children or by regulating the systems designed to capture their attention.
As Divya’s father discovered over dinner, sometimes the challenge is not keeping young people away from the screen. It is persuading them that there is something more interesting on the other side of it—even if it is only their mother’s biryani.
Author Bio: Aloka Sengupta is a healthcare professional and commentator on health, international affairs and geopolitics.
These pieces are being published as they have been received – they have not been edited/fact-checked by ThePrint.