Children today are growing up online. A UNICEF study found that 60 percent of Filipino children aged 10 to 17 are active internet users, with many exposed to cyberbullying, body image pressure, online predators, and harmful content. The growing concerns over mental health has been echoed globally.

Also, research has linked excessive screen time to anxiety, depression, sleep disruption, behavioral issues, and attention deficits. Manila Bulletin columnist Mon Ibrahim had warned of screen dependency disorder—a form of digital addiction now alarmingly common in kids.

A 2024 global study reported that teens spend an average of 7.5 hours a day on screens, with younger children logging up to five hours. More troubling, platforms deliberately exploit psychological vulnerabilities through dopamine-driven feedback loops—likes, shares, and endless scrolling—that hijack children’s developing brains.

This is not new information. Many parents and school organizations have commented on this trend, urging for laws to restrict children’s access to social media. The studies indicate the need to do something about letting our children grow up online, their values and behavior influenced by social media personalities.

Australia has found an answer. Starting Dec. 10, Australia will become the first country in the world to enforce a nationwide ban on social media accounts for children under 16, according to an AP report. Platforms like TikTok, Instagram, Snapchat, YouTube, and X face fines of up to AUD 50 million (₱1.8 billion) if they fail to block underage users. The policy—while controversial—is a bold attempt to address what many now see as a full-blown crisis in child development.

Australia’s eSafety Commissioner Julie Inman Grant calls it a “monumental event” and has launched a national campaign to help families wean children off social media. Guides include steps for downloading memories, shifting to alternative content formats, and accessing mental health resources during the transition.

The move has polarized experts and parents alike. Over 140 academics have called the law a “blunt instrument” that could create more harm than good. But it also has strong government and public backing—and the world is watching.

Australia’s law gives young people “three more years to learn who they are before platforms assume who they are,” said Communications Minister Anika Wells. That pause is not trivial. It may be crucial.

Critics warn of unintended consequences. Blocking access could push teens to more secretive or unsafe online spaces, make them socially isolated, or deprive them of digital literacy opportunities. How do you verify a 15-year-old’s age reliably online? Tech firms have no foolproof solutions. Some may resort to invasive surveillance or ID scans, raising data privacy red flags.

There’s also the issue of equity. In wealthier homes, children may find supervised or alternative platforms. In poorer or rural communities, children may simply be locked out of online learning and civic participation.

Even Denmark—considering a similar law—has proposed parental exemptions for 13–14-year-olds. Australia does not. This raises questions about flexibility, enforcement, and who gets to decide what's best for a child: the state or the family?

In the Philippines, Sen. Panfilo M. Lacson has filed a bill in July 2025, regulating the use of social media platforms by minors. The bill is titled "An Act Regulating the Use of Social Media Platforms by Minors, Imposing Age Restrictions, Providing Penalties for Violations Thereof, and for Other Purposes."

In his bill, he cited: "A UNICEF (United Nations Children's Fund) study ... revealed that Filipino children and adolescents have grown vulnerable to cyberbullying, body image pressures, and online harassment because of social media exposure. He said the Council for the Welfare of Children reported that one in every three children in the Philippines aged zero to 18 uses the internet, while the National ICT Household Survey revealed that 60 percent of children aged 10 to 17 not only have internet access but are also active users.

Lacson cited Australia’s move to set the minimum age limit for social media platforms to create safer digital spaces for everyone.

He took inspiration from this model, and “in adherence to our State's declared policy of promoting and protecting the mental and emotional well-being of its children, this bill is being proposed to protect Filipino children below 18 years old from online risks and harmful content by prohibiting minors from accessing or using social media platforms. "

The bill states that minors shall be prohibited from accessing or using social media services, while social media platforms shall take "reasonable steps and age verification measures to prevent age-restricted users from registering, accessing, or continuing to use their social media service."

Policies like these are important, but laws alone won’t save children from digital harm. Parental behavior remains the strongest influence. If adults remain glued to their phones during dinner, how can we expect children to be different?

The digital world is here to stay. What’s needed is a multilayered solution: laws, yes—but also education, family modeling, healthier tech design, and real-world alternatives.

Australia’s under-16 social media ban is an unprecedented national experiment. Its success—or failure—will shape how other countries, including the Philippines, regulate children’s digital lives. It is a risk—but perhaps a necessary one.

When it comes to children’s wellbeing, doing nothing is no longer an option. The real question is: will this law protect childhood—or merely postpone digital harm? (Email: [email protected])