Several countries have moved to ban social media for minors. Critically examine whether a blanket age-based ban is an effective tool for child online safety, with reference to India's Digital Personal Data Protection framework.

Greece's Parliament has banned social media for children under 15, making age verification mandatory and penalising non-compliant platforms [1]. Australia's under-16 law follows a similar model [2]. A blanket ban is a strong signal, but on its own it is a blunt and leaky tool.

Strengths of a blanket ban

• Scale of exposure: an average OECD 15-year-old spends almost 35 hours a week on social media, which is more than on homework and lessons [2].
• Platform accountability: the burden moves from parents to companies, which face the penalties [1].
• Quick, visible impact: about 4.7 million accounts were reportedly removed within weeks of Australia's ban [2].

Weaknesses

• Contested evidence: harm is linked to heavy use. In PISA 2022, moderate users score best, and scores fall only beyond about 3 hours a day [2]. A ban also takes away beneficial use.
• Circumvention: children get around bans through VPNs, false ages and adults' accounts, and move to exempt gaming and messaging apps [2].
• Weak verification capacity: only 2 of 50 services used by children check age systematically at sign-up [3].
• Privacy and expression costs: every user, adults included, must prove their age. This conflicts with data minimisation and the Puttaswamy proportionality test. Content curbs can also chill speech [2].

India's DPDP framework: a calibrated alternative

• Consent, not prohibition: the DPDP Act, 2023 and Rules, 2025 require verifiable parental consent before a child's (under-18) data is processed. Healthcare, education and real-time safety are exempt [4].
• Deterrence: violating obligations relating to children attracts penalties of up to ₹200 crore [4].
• Gaps: consent can be faked and parents' digital literacy varies. Compliance is also phased in over 18 months [4].
• Way forward: use privacy-preserving, token-based age checks; require audits and user appeals, as Australia's eSafety does [2]; target harmful design such as Utah's cap on algorithmic feeds [2]; and teach digital literacy in schools.

Overall, a blanket ban produces quick headline results but does not by itself make children safe online. India should strengthen its consent-based DPDP model with safety-by-design, audited age assurance and digital literacy. This approach protects children while upholding the Article 21 right to privacy and the child's best interests.