This article originally appeared on Undercurrent, my weekly column for the Philippine Daily Inquirer: https://opinion.inquirer.net/188217/is-it-time-to-ban-social-media-for-children
Last week, Australia became the first country to implement a nationwide law preventing children aged 16 and below from accessing social media platforms. Since taking effect, hundreds of thousands of accounts have been deactivated. Predictably, the rollout has been messy and uneven. Many young users still have access to their accounts, and some of them even made fun of the Australian prime minister’s TikTok posts about the ban to show that they are still active online.
Despite these early hiccups, many Australian parents, policymakers, and child advocates remain supportive of the social media ban and believe that it will help create a cultural shift, allowing younger children to grow up with less pressure from visibility, comparison, and performative identity. Without social clout or financial incentives tied to follower counts, there is optimism that children might be encouraged to pursue more offline forms of play and connection.
While I was initially skeptical of its feasibility and effectiveness, I now find myself hoping that the Philippines will consider starting a similar conversation. The recently released Global Digital Report 2025 ranks the country third globally in average daily time spent online, with Filipinos spending an average of eight hours and 52 minutes (higher than the worldwide median of six hours and 38 minutes). Children in the Philippines begin independently accessing the internet at around age 10, and the extended time they spend on social media significantly increases their vulnerability to online harm. Risks include cyberbullying, phishing, exposure to violent content, and more severe forms of exploitation, such as grooming and blackmail/coercion for sexual acts or images.
Children in the Philippines begin independently accessing the internet at around age 10, and the extended time they spend on social media significantly increases their vulnerability to online harm.
Even without a formal ban, there are models for intentionally delaying a child’s online access. Local schools that follow the Waldorf approach work closely with parents in implementing what they refer to as “age-appropriate media exposure.” This entails eliminating or strictly discouraging a child’s access to gadgets both in school and at home until they are in the eighth grade, focusing more on hands-on learning experiences, nature exposure, and physical activities. Parents themselves are encouraged to check their own digital habits and limit their screen time because they model the norms that children inevitably absorb. This highlights how a delay is possible, but it requires an ecosystem of aligned values among schools, families, and communities.
However, that kind of ecosystem is not necessarily accessible to all. For low-income families, the conversation around delayed access looks very different. Due to scarce resources for childcare and limited access to safe public spaces, gadgets have a more utilitarian function. Apart from providing cheap access to entertainment, working parents also tend to use screens as a more affordable alternative to “babysitters.” Therefore, any serious discussion about limiting children’s online access in the Philippines must also acknowledge that their high rate of unrestricted digital exposure could be a consequence of economic constraints.
This is why the question should not only be about when young people should be allowed to use social media, but also how effective we are in ensuring that they are equipped with the right skills and protections before and after that exposure. The Department of Education has strengthened the integration of media and information literacy skills in the Matatag curriculum, placing more emphasis on critically analyzing the information they see, along with ethical reasoning and digital citizenship. Platforms like Khan Academy offer free modules that teachers can use, including gamified lessons on safe online navigation.
Successful literacy, however, must also instill in children that their value is not tied to visibility, validation, or the rate of engagement that they get online. The Centre for Education and Youth’s Vision for Media Literacy has a framework that embeds discussions on media’s psychological effects. Students learn how to identify manipulative designs (e.g., how algorithms amplify visibility) and are guided to internalize a sense of agency over external affirmation through reflective practices about their online experiences.
When online platforms are deliberately engineered to extract attention and reward emotional extremes, expecting children (and even adults) to consistently self-regulate seems quite unrealistic. Any meaningful solution must acknowledge this power imbalance.
Ultimately, digital safety cannot rest solely on the users. When online platforms are deliberately engineered to extract attention and reward emotional extremes, expecting children (and even adults) to consistently self-regulate seems quite unrealistic. Any meaningful solution must acknowledge this power imbalance. The country needs to learn closely from Australia’s experience and assess whether a similar ban, or other regulatory measures, can more effectively enforce platform accountability and ensure age-appropriate exposure. Education can help build resilience, but effective regulation is needed to address the structures that enable and profit from online harm.
###
