Critically examine the debate on 'media effects' versus 'audience agency' in the context of adolescent social media use, with reference to recent global regulatory action against Big Tech.

The 'media effects' lens treats adolescents as shaped, even harmed, by platform design; the 'audience agency' lens sees them as active navigators of peer networks. Recent regulatory action suggests both hold partial truth, though design accountability must come first.

The case for 'media effects'

• Regulatory finding: Meta's settlement of up to $17.1 billion with 51 US attorneys general (2026) over deliberately addictive features for minors — remedies include a two-hour daily cap, a midnight–6 a.m. blackout, hidden "likes", non-algorithmic feed options and age verification [1].
• Epidemiological evidence: WHO/HBSC data across 44 countries show problematic social media use rising from 7% (2018) to 11% (2022), higher among girls (13%) than boys (9%) [2].
• Developmental basis: adolescent risk-taking matures faster than impulse control, so engagement-maximising design amplifies an existing vulnerability.

The case for 'audience agency'

• Teen use is peer-driven and cross-platform; restricting one app often displaces activity rather than reducing it.
• UNICEF's global consultation records young people's frustration at an "illusion of control" online — they demand rights, transparency and voice, not exclusion from digital life [3].
• Each new medium — cinema in the 1930s, comics, television, video games — produced similar alarm, repeatedly casting youth as passive victims and omitting them from policy design.

Critical assessment

• An exclusive effects framing risks paternalism and surveillance creep, since hard age verification demands identity data; an exclusive agency framing wrongly absolves corporate design choices.
• India's approach already blends both: the DPDP Act, 2023 mandates verifiable parental consent and bars tracking and targeted advertising for children [4], while school and curricular digital-literacy efforts build capability.

Regulation works best when it disciplines design and strengthens adolescent capability. India should pair DPDP enforcement with privacy-preserving age assurance, transparent algorithmic audits and structured consultation with young users — treating children as rights-holders under Article 21's privacy guarantee, not merely as subjects to be protected.