The European Union’s latest proposal on children and social media is more serious than a headline ban. An expert panel has recommended restricting access below the age of 13, except with parental consent or for educational purposes, and allowing greater autonomy only as children mature. The European Commission will now consider legislation. The value of this approach lies in its refusal to pretend that a child of eight and a teenager of 17 face the same risks, or possess the same capacity to manage them.
The debate is often reduced to screen time. That misses how many platforms work. Infinite scroll, autoplay, persistent notifications and recommendation systems are built to prolong attention. For children, whose judgement and impulse control are still developing, the effect can be especially intrusive. Excessive use has been associated with disrupted sleep, poor concentration, anxiety, social comparison and exposure to harmful content, though social media cannot be blamed for every difficulty facing young people. The evidence varies by age, circumstance and type of use.
An age threshold may therefore be defensible as a precaution. It is not enough. Children can evade restrictions, borrow adult accounts or move towards less visible services. Nor should age verification become an excuse for platforms or governments to collect identity documents, facial scans or other sensitive data from every user. A system created in the name of safety could easily produce a new architecture of surveillance.
The EU panel is right to place the burden on providers. Platforms that profit from young users should have to show that their services are safe for them. Default protections should limit addictive features, unsolicited contact, behavioural advertising and engagement-driven recommendations. Complaint systems must be accessible, audits independent and penalties large enough to alter corporate behaviour. Parents and schools have a role, but they cannot be expected to outmatch companies equipped with immense stores of data and behavioural expertise.
Pakistan should watch this debate closely. The Islamabad High Court has already sought details from the government and regulators on age verification, protections for minors and enforcement against non-compliant platforms. Yet any Pakistani framework will need safeguards against a familiar danger: child protection being used to justify broad censorship, platform blocking or expanded state control over lawful expression.
The country needs clear duties for technology companies, safer settings switched on by default, rapid action against grooming, sexual exploitation, cyberbullying and non-consensual imagery, and digital literacy taught in schools. It also needs privacy protections strong enough to ensure that children are not made more vulnerable by the systems designed to protect them.
Age limits can set a boundary and alter social expectations. They cannot repair unsafe products. The lasting test is whether governments compel platforms to redesign services around children’s welfare rather than their attention. *