Starting today, individuals in Australia under 16 years old will not be allowed to have a social media account. Last year, in November, the Australian Parliament passed legislation restricting young people below 17 from having accounts on major social media platforms and requiring these platforms to verify the age of everyone logging in.

Parents and their children won’t be penalized; the law leaves it to the platforms to take steps to ensure that account-holders are at least 16 years old or face fines of up to Australian $49.5 million (US$33 million or GBP 25 million) for the most serious of breaches. The law takes effect today, 10 December.

Hailed as the first of its kind in the world, the law’s initial list of restricted platforms includes Facebook, Instagram, X, TikTok, YouTube, Snapchat, Reddit, Threads, Kick, Threads, and Twitch.

Other platforms, including Steam, Bluesky, WhatsApp, and YouTube Kids, were considered but not included in the ban. That could change at any point in the future, however, if those platforms reach a certain number of users or Australia’s eSafety Commission decides that a platform has come to sufficiently resemble social media rather than merely gaming or peer-to-peer communications.

The Australian government says the ban - a world-first policy popular with many parents - is aimed at protecting youngsters from harmful content and other risks such as cyberbullying.

Here in the Philippines, Senator Panfilo M. Lacson has introduced similar legislation. Lacson’s measure seeks to likewise prohibit young people - under 18 - from having social media accounts.

There is no denying the abuse that youngsters – people, in general – are exposed to online, but Imposing strict age restrictions on social media access raises several concerns.

First, it could push minors towards less monitored or illegal platforms, where they might encounter even more significant risks without proper safeguards.

Instead of creating safer environments, an outright ban might drive behavior underground, where oversight is even less possible.

Also, a ban can be perceived as an infringement on children’s rights to access information and communicate freely.

In an increasingly digital world, being connected is crucial for the social and educational development of the youth. Limiting access may restrict opportunities for learning and social interaction that occur online.

Moreover, the bill's effectiveness relies heavily on age verification measures, which could be difficult to enforce consistently. A lot of kids who are tech-savvy can easily bypass age restrictions with false information. Thus, while the bill aims to protect minors, its practical application can face obstacles.

Make no mistake, there are valid reasons for supporting Lacson’s bill. The alarming statistics cited, including high rates of internet usage among Filipino children and the associated risks underscore the pressing need for protective measures in an increasingly digital world.

Regulating access to social media is aimed at safeguarding young users’ mental and emotional well-being, fostering healthier online experiences.

If enacted, Lacson’s bill could raise awareness among parents, educators, and society about the digital challenges children face. This can prompt broader discussions about responsible internet use, parental involvement, and digital literacy, in all, encouraging families to engage in conversations about online safety and ethics.

But there are challenges in implementing a bill like this in the Philippines. There are existing cultural and other factors to consider.

Many Filipino families value open communication and the internet as an educational tool. A ban could create resistance among parents who view supervised social media use as part of technology integration.

Also, enforcement would require coordination between government agencies, social media platforms, and educational institutions. Platforms would have to invest in systems that verify ages accurately, and the government would need to allocate resources for monitoring compliance.

If successfully enacted, the bill could reshape family dynamics concerning technology use, with parents becoming more involved in their children's digital lives, fostering discussions about online conduct and safety.

It could encourage families to seek alternative activities and engage in more direct communication.

But it could also introduce tension between parents and children. Young individuals may feel their autonomy is being restricted, leading to resistance or rebellion against imposed limitations.

The intention behind Lacson’s proposed bill on regulating social media use among Filipino minors is a significant effort to protect young users from the pitfalls of digital exposure.

While it aims to address serious concerns, the risks associated with such a ban—potentially pushing minors to unregulated platforms, infringing on rights, and the practical challenges of enforcement—must be carefully evaluated.

Balancing protection with rights and acknowledging the crucial role of parents and guardians in guiding children’s internet use is essential.

Ultimately, a holistic approach that combines education, parental engagement, and responsible use of technology, rather than an all-out strict ban on social media, may be more effective in fostering a safe digital environment for the Filipino youth.