Child online safety needs platform accountability, not only age bans - IOL
Experts say protecting children online will require more than simply banning social-media access for under-16s.
As South Africa considers how to protect children online, experts say under-16 restrictions must be paired with platform accountability, privacy safeguards, education and safer-by-design technology.
Countries like Australia have enacted their law, New Zealand has developed proposed legislation.
Lawyer and LLD candidate specialising in child digital rights and platform regulation at the Faculty of Law, University of Pretoria, Belinda Matore said there are legitimate child protection arguments for restricting under-16s’ access to social media. However, a blanket ban also raises concerns, especially regarding children’s rights.
She said social media offers children educational, expressive, and social benefits, meaning any ban must balance children’s rights to expression, information and privacy against potential harms. Furthermore, enforcing age verification raises privacy concerns about children’s data under the Protection of Personal Information Act (POPIA).
“A blanket ban should not be treated as a substitute for broader platform regulation. A risk-based approach should also address platform design, age assurance, privacy, safety-by-design and platform accountability,” Matore said.
She said evidence remains emerging and inconclusive on whether blanket age bans effectively reduce adolescents’ social media use. Peer-reviewed studies on Australia’s minimum-age law show little immediate impact. Other research has highlighted compliance and circumvention challenges. Long-term research is still needed to assess impacts on sleep, mental health and education.
Matore noted that parents can set screen-time limits, though enforcement is difficult across multiple devices or bypass methods. Furthermore, screen time quality varies: educational content differs significantly from algorithmically personalised feeds designed for engagement.
“The regulatory focus should therefore not only be on how long children are online, but also on what platforms are designed to do while children are online,” Matore said.
“Ultimately, child online safety cannot be placed entirely on children and parents. Platforms also need to be accountable for creating safer digital environments.”
Childline KwaZulu-Natal director Adeshini Naicker said a ban could give younger children some protection and also place more responsibility on social media companies to protect children on their platforms. However, a ban alone will not solve the problem.
“Children will still want to access social media, and some may find ways around the restrictions. We also have to consider whether children could move to other platforms where there is even less protection,” Naicker said.
“For South Africa, I think we need to look carefully at what is realistic and enforceable. A ban would need to be supported by education for children, parents and teachers about online safety. We also need social media companies to take greater responsibility for protecting children.”
Naicker said that as the first to enact legislation, Australia serves as a primary example, though early research indicates children are bypassing restrictions. It remains too early to evaluate long-term impacts, and further study is required.
“For me, the important question for South Africa is not simply whether we should ban social media for children under 16. We need to ask what will actually keep children safer online,” Naicker said.
She added that while children should be protected from online dangers, they also need to be careful that any legislation does not create new risks. The focus should be on creating a safer online environment for children, rather than simply keeping them off social media.
Note: These are Belinda Matore’s personal views and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Centre for Human Rights or the University of Pretoria.
