Social media use by children may displace conversations, play, and sleep, in addition to exposing them to cyberbullying and harmful content. This developmental cost is being considered as South Africa weighs potential age limits for social media platforms. The potential for social media to expose children to cyberbullying and harmful content is a significant concern, but its developmental cost could also lie in the essential conversations, play, and sleep it displaces, impacting healthy growth and learning. Internationally, Australia has required designated platforms since December 10, 2025, to implement reasonable measures preventing under-16s from creating or retaining accounts. Similarly, the United Kingdom has announced that certain social media services will become unavailable to individuals under 16 years old starting in spring 2027.
Global Push for Online Safeguards
Australia was the first country to enforce a national minimum age of 16 for social media accounts. This move set a precedent for other nations grappling with the impact of online platforms on young users. Since December 10, 2025, designated platforms in Australia have been mandated to take reasonable steps to prevent individuals under 16 from creating or retaining accounts, marking a significant regulatory shift. Following Australia's action, Indonesia subsequently began enforcing restrictions for users under 16, reflecting a growing international trend towards greater regulation of social media access for minors. The United Kingdom's announcement that certain social media services will become unavailable to individuals under 16 years old from spring 2027 further shows this global movement. These measures highlight a concerted effort by governments to establish stricter online safeguards for children and adolescents. The international community is increasingly recognizing the need for proactive steps to mitigate potential harms associated with early and unregulated social media exposure.
Developmental Concerns and Nuances
A 2024 systematic review and meta-analysis published in JAMA Pediatrics found that increased programme viewing and exposure to background television among children under the age of six were linked to poorer cognitive outcomes. The findings suggest a correlation between early childhood screen time habits and developmental impacts. Specifically, the review noted that greater programme viewing and background television exposure among children under six were associated with poorer cognitive outcomes, indicating a critical period for media influence. However, the study also identified positive associations between co-use of media and cognitive outcomes, emphasizing the importance of context in understanding the effects of screen exposure. The research indicates that simply measuring screen time may not fully capture its diverse effects, with how and why media is used potentially influencing its impact on development. This nuance suggests that blanket restrictions might not address the full spectrum of media's impact, and that supervised, interactive, or educational screen use could have different outcomes compared to passive consumption.
Expert Recommendations for SA
Age-inappropriate content and caregivers' screen use during children's routines were associated with poorer psychosocial outcomes. This finding from the JAMA Pediatrics study shows that the content children are exposed to, as well as the habits of their caregivers regarding screen use during key routines, can negatively affect their emotional and social development. Linique Hanekom, who works at the North West University’s Centre for Health and Human Performance, stated, "Technology must never become a substitute for childhood." Hanekom expressed a preference for "the language of an ‘age restriction’ rather than simply a punitive ‘ban’." She added, "I would not view a restriction as a complete solution. It should form part of a broader child-development and online-safety strategy involving parents, schools, government and technology companies."
Hanekom emphasized that "the burden rests on the companies, not children or their parents." She noted that "local policy would have to account for unequal access to technology, digital literacy, education, data costs and the reality that many children also go online to learn, create, find community and seek support." Hanekom cautioned that "age checks introduce privacy questions, while determined adolescents may simply circumvent them." She further explained, "A restriction without education, platform accountability and accessible alternatives is unlikely to be sufficient. The developmental concern reaches far beyond offensive content. For younger children, real human interaction is developmental work." Hanekom concluded, "The issue is not simply what a screen does to a child; it is what the screen may prevent the child from doing. That distinction is supported by research." She added that "for older children, social media arrives while identity, emotional regulation and self-concept are still developing," making them particularly vulnerable to its effects. This full perspective notes the complexity of implementing effective social media regulations in a diverse society like South Africa.
