"Regulation alone cannot address the civilisational challenge posed by social media." Critically examine this statement in the context of child online safety in India.

India has chosen regulation over prohibition for minors online: the DPDP Act, 2023 and its Rules, 2025 require verifiable parental consent and bar tracking or behavioural targeting of children [4]. Yet statute can police platforms, not childhoods — making the statement largely, though not wholly, valid.

What regulation has genuinely delivered

• Leverage over intermediaries: MeitY has used the threat of withdrawing safe harbour under Section 79, IT Act to force removal of Child Sexual Abuse Material, issuing notices to major platforms [2].
• Technical blocking: ISPs are directed to block CSAM URLs on a dynamic basis using IWF (UK) and Project Arachnid (Canada) lists [2].
• Accountability architecture: IT Rules, 2021 impose grievance officers, takedown timelines and traceability duties on social media and OTT platforms [1].
• Data-side protection: consent, purpose limitation and a ban on targeted advertising to children [4].

Why regulation alone falls short

• Enforceability: Australia's world-first under-16 ban, in force from 10 December 2025 across ten platforms with heavy fines, is already being circumvented by teenagers [3] — age-gating is defeated by shared devices and false declarations, conditions far more common in India.
• Harm is behavioural, not merely informational: addiction, grooming, bullying and self-image damage arise from usage norms; law removes content, it cannot cultivate restraint.
• Capacity deficit: the Rajya Sabha ad-hoc committee itself paired legal amendments with strengthening NCPCR, state e-safety commissioners and parent–school awareness — conceding that enforcement machinery and social preparation must move together [1].
• Rights balance: intrusive age verification strains privacy under Article 21, capping how far coercion can go.

Regulation is therefore the necessary floor, not the whole edifice. A layered response — statutory safeguards, robust redress institutions, digital-literacy curricula, parental mediation and platform self-restraint rooted in India's own ethical traditions of self-regulation — best serves the child's right to development under Article 39(f) and the UNCRC, converting a defensive ban-versus-freedom debate into responsible digital citizenship.