Introduction
I follow tech-policy debates with a simple question: what problem are we trying to solve, and at what cost? When I read that a state government in India is studying an Australia-style ban on social media accounts for users under 16, I understood the impulse — protect children from demonstrable harms — and I worried about the practical, legal and rights-related consequences of a state-level attempt to replicate a national experiment abroad India Today NDTV.
Context and evidence
Australia enacted an Online Safety Amendment that effectively forbids social-media accounts for those under 16 on specified platforms and puts the enforcement burden on platforms, with heavy fines for non‑compliance. The law has been controversial and is already the subject of High Court challenges and public debate about efficacy, privacy and constitutional questions Wikipedia and reporting on legal challenges to the law The Conversation / reporting collations.
The Andhra Pradesh deliberation is framed as child‑safety policy, not censorship. But the mechanics are more difficult than the headline suggests: age assurance, jurisdictional enforcement, platform cooperation, and constitutional competence are all unresolved variables [Times of India; The News Minute].
Why it won’t be so easy — legal and constitutional hurdles
- Constitutional and jurisdictional limits
- In India, communications and many internet-related rules intersect with central laws. A single state prescribing an enforceable ban on platform accounts risks colliding with the Centre’s legislative competence and platform obligations. That is not merely a bureaucratic hurdle — it creates litigation risk and regulatory fragmentation that platforms will resist.
- Rights and proportionality
- Blanket age bans raise questions about freedom of expression and reasonable restrictions. Courts — in Australia’s case — are already being asked whether a national ban is proportionate. An Indian state pushing a similar measure would face analogous constitutional scrutiny and challenge.
Technical and operational challenges
Age verification at scale is hard. Robust age-assurance systems (biometric, document-based, or behavioural inference) carry privacy trade-offs, centralisation risks and high false‑positive/negative rates.
Location enforcement is brittle. The internet is globally routed; users can mask location with VPNs or other means. Platforms can attempt geo‑blocks, but motivated adolescents routinely find workarounds.
Platform classification is messy. Many services blur the lines between social media, messaging, gaming and educational tools; a legal carve‑out list is a continual maintenance problem.
Probable workarounds platforms and users will adopt
Technical circumvention: VPNs and proxy services allow users to appear located outside the state; platforms may try to block obvious circumvention tools, but an arms race follows.
Migration to unsupervised services: young users may move to smaller apps, decentralised services, or gaming/chat apps that fall outside the scope of a ban, pushing activity into less‑moderated corners of the internet.
False self‑attestation: identity‑document faking and account sharing (parents lending accounts) will complicate enforcement.
Counterarguments and where they have force
Public health argument: Multiple studies link intensive social media use with anxiety, depression and other harms in young people. Any policy that reduces exposure will have benefits for some children.
Platform accountability: Shifting enforcement to platforms — as Australia did — can create incentives for safer product design, though it also pressures platforms to adopt invasive verification technologies.
Parental support: For many families, stronger rules simplify boundaries and enforcement.
Yet, the empirical record shows diminishing returns when policy focuses only on access removal rather than design, literacy and targeted moderation. I have argued before for pragmatic measures like stronger age verification tied to responsible consent frameworks — including technical identity solutions that respect privacy and parental consent — rather than blunt exclusions; see my earlier reflections on age gating and consent management Hemen Parekh — Protecting Children from Social Media Ills.
Implications for young users and platforms
Inequity: A state ban risks unequal outcomes — urban children with parental literacy and device access will be treated differently from rural or marginalised youths who rely on shared devices and networks.
Digital exclusion: Platforms are not only social; they are learning, civic and livelihood spaces. Removing legitimate, supervised access can harm education and civic participation.
Compliance costs: Platform-level verification and content adjustments have real economic costs. Smaller services might withdraw or fragment the market.
Policy recommendations — pragmatic, layered and rights‑respecting
Coordinate nationally: Digital‑age rules work best when uniform. States should partner with the Centre to avoid fragmentation and constitutional pushback.
Prioritise safer-by-design platform obligations over blunt bans: enforce algorithmic transparency, age‑appropriate defaults, and stronger moderation for youth users.
Invest in privacy‑preserving age assurance: fund pilot programs for consent and age‑checks that minimise data centralisation and give parents manageable control tools.
Strengthen digital literacy and school‑based interventions: prevention through skills is cheaper and more durable than prohibition.
Build an evidence loop: mandate measurement (mental‑health outcomes, migration to other services) and revise regulation based on observed harms, not just models.
Conclusion
I want children protected from real harms — that should be the lodestar. But policy must be technically feasible, legally defensible, and socially equitable. A state-level attempt to transplant a national Australian model faces steep legal, technical and social obstacles. If the goal is child well‑being, a layered approach — combining platform obligations, privacy‑preserving age assurance pilots, national coordination, and education — will be more likely to help children than a standalone state ban.
I have written about these tradeoffs before and continue to believe that bold intentions need disciplined design.
Regards,
Hemen Parekh
Any questions / doubts / clarifications regarding this blog? Just ask (by typing or talking) my Virtual Avatar on the website embedded below. Then "Share" that to your friend on WhatsApp.
Get correct answer to any question asked by Shri Amitabh Bachchan on Kaun Banega Crorepati, faster than any contestant
Hello Candidates :
- For UPSC – IAS – IPS – IFS etc., exams, you must prepare to answer, essay type questions which test your General Knowledge / Sensitivity of current events
- If you have read this blog carefully , you should be able to answer the following question:
- Need help ? No problem . Following are two AI AGENTS where we have PRE-LOADED this question in their respective Question Boxes . All that you have to do is just click SUBMIT
- www.HemenParekh.ai { a SLM , powered by my own Digital Content of more than 50,000 + documents, written by me over past 60 years of my professional career }
- www.IndiaAGI.ai { a consortium of 3 LLMs which debate and deliver a CONSENSUS answer – and each gives its own answer as well ! }
- It is up to you to decide which answer is more comprehensive / nuanced ( For sheer amazement, click both SUBMIT buttons quickly, one after another ) Then share any answer with yourself / your friends ( using WhatsApp / Email ). Nothing stops you from submitting ( just copy / paste from your resource ), all those questions from last year’s UPSC exam paper as well !
- May be there are other online resources which too provide you answers to UPSC “ General Knowledge “ questions but only I provide you in 26 languages !
No comments:
Post a Comment