Algorithmic design of social media platforms has been linked to addiction and radicalisation among youth. Critically analyse the regulatory response required.

Engagement-maximising design — infinite scroll, autoplay, streaks, variable rewards — converts adolescent attention into revenue. The WHO/HBSC survey found problematic social media use among adolescents rising from 7% (2018) to 11% (2022), with 12% at risk of problematic gaming [1]. The regulatory answer must therefore target design and accountability, not merely access.

How algorithmic design produces harm

• Addictive loops: variable-reward feeds and notification streaks exploit immature impulse control; WHO links intensive use to poorer sleep and wellbeing [1].
• Radicalisation funnel: ranking by engagement rewards outrage, progressively narrowing recommendations toward extreme content.
• Commercial profiling: behavioural data of minors is monetised through personalised advertising.

India's existing response

• DPDP Act, 2023 (Section 9): verifiable parental consent for children, and an explicit bar on tracking, behavioural monitoring and targeted advertising directed at children [2].
• IT Rules, 2021: due-diligence duties, grievance officers and added obligations on significant social media intermediaries [3].
• SHIELD Bill, 2025 (private member's Bill, Baijayant Panda): no account for under-13s without verified parental consent, mandatory age-assurance, parental-control dashboards [4].

Critical appraisal

• Access-gating is not design regulation: consent walls control entry; the ranking logic causing addiction remains untouched.
• Privacy trade-off: credible age verification demands identity data from all users — a proportionality problem against the right to privacy.
• Enforcement gap: false ages, shared devices and VPNs; Australia's under-16 minimum-age law [5] shows the burden must sit on platform-side age assurance, with heavy penalties.
• Rights and feasibility: blanket bans strain Article 19(1)(a) and push minors to unregulated spaces; a private member's Bill also has slim chances of enactment.

Effective regulation must move from gate-keeping to a statutory duty of care plus algorithmic accountability — mandatory child-risk audits, non-personalised chronological feeds as the default for minors, and transparency on recommender systems — operationalised through DPDP Rules and the Data Protection Board, and paired with school-level digital literacy. Protecting the child's developmental autonomy, rather than merely denying access, best serves both constitutional liberty and SDG-3 wellbeing goals.