Child online safety requires platform accountability, not just age bans

As South Africa weighs how best to protect children online, experts are urging that restrictions on under-16s be coupled with stronger platform accountability, privacy safeguards, education and technology designed to keep children safer.

More than an age cut-off

Belinda Matore, a lawyer and LLD candidate specialising in child digital rights and platform regulation at the Faculty of Law, University of Pretoria, said there are legitimate child protection arguments for restricting under-16s’ access to social media.

At the same time, Matore warned that a blanket ban raises concerns about children’s rights and privacy. She said social media can provide children with educational, expressive, and social benefits, and that any ban must balance children’s rights to expression, information and privacy against potential harms.

Design, data and enforcement concerns

Matore highlighted privacy problems linked to enforcing age verification, noting possible conflicts with the Protection of Personal Information Act (POPIA). She said a ban should not replace broader platform regulation and called for a risk-based approach addressing platform design, age assurance, privacy, safety-by-design and platform accountability.

She added that evidence is still emerging on whether blanket age bans reduce adolescents’ social media use. Peer-reviewed studies on Australia’s minimum-age law show little immediate impact, and other research has noted compliance and circumvention challenges. Matore said long-term research is still needed to assess impacts on sleep, mental health and education.

Role of parents, schools and platforms

Matore said parents can set screen-time limits but enforcement is difficult across multiple devices and where children use bypass methods. She also stressed that screen time quality matters, contrasting educational content with 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.

She concluded:

“Ultimately, child online safety cannot be placed entirely on children and parents. Platforms also need to be accountable for creating safer digital environments.”

Views from child protection services

Adeshini Naicker, director of Childline KwaZulu-Natal, said a ban could give younger children some protection and could place more responsibility on social media companies to protect children on their platforms, but she warned that a ban alone will not solve the problem.

Naicker said children may try to bypass restrictions and could move to other platforms with even less protection. She urged South Africa to consider what is realistic and enforceable, and said any ban would need to be supported by education for children, parents and teachers about online safety.

“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.

International examples and research gaps

The piece notes that Australia has enacted a minimum-age law and New Zealand has developed proposed legislation. Both Matore and Naicker said early research on Australia’s law shows children are bypassing restrictions and that it is too early to evaluate long-term impacts.

What should guide policy

Both experts emphasise that policy should focus on creating safer online environments rather than simply preventing access. Measures they advocate include platform accountability, privacy protections, safety-by-design technology and education for children, parents and teachers.

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.