South Africa should seriously consider imposing a minimum age of 16 for social media use, an academic specialising in child development and neurodevelopmental disorders has said, joining an international trend in which governments are placing clearer limits on children’s access to social platforms.
Policy shift abroad puts pressure on local debate
Australia became the first country to enforce a national minimum age of 16 for social media on 10 December 2025, requiring designated platforms to take reasonable steps to prevent under-16s from creating or retaining accounts. Indonesia has followed with similar measures and the United Kingdom has announced plans to make certain social-media services unavailable to younger users from 2027, according to reporting.
Linique Hanekom of the North-West University’s Centre for Health and Human Performance, whose work includes a focus on neurodevelopmental disorders and early communication, argued that South Africa should look closely at an age restriction but warned it cannot be a stand-alone remedy.
“I would prefer the language of an ‘age restriction’ rather than simply a punitive ‘ban’. 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.”
Developmental risks and the limits of prohibition
Hanekom and others emphasise that the harm from social media is not only direct exposure to harmful content or cyberbullying. Equally important are the developmental costs when screens displace sleep, play, movement and direct interactions with responsive adults. In her words, the issue is not simply what a screen does to a child but what the screen may prevent the child from doing.
She stressed that technology must not become a substitute for childhood and that any age limit should be framed as a protective measure rather than purely punitive.
Who should bear responsibility?
Countries that have moved to limit under-age access place the legal burden on platforms to enforce the rules rather than on children or their parents. Australia’s approach makes companies responsible for preventing under-16s from holding accounts. That allocation of responsibility is central to the debate in South Africa, where enforcement capacity, digital access inequalities and parental supervision vary widely.
Hanekom argued that an effective approach would require coordinated action across multiple sectors:
- parents and caregivers providing oversight and mediation;
- schools embedding digital literacy and healthy screen habits into curricula;
- government setting and enforcing age limits and standards for platforms;
- technology companies designing and implementing age-verification and safety measures.
Implementation challenges and open questions
Adopting an under-16 limit would prompt practical questions. How would age verification work in a country with high levels of identity document non-possession? How would regulators monitor compliance from international platforms? What sanctions would be imposed for breaches? The advocacy for an age restriction in South Africa, as presented by Hanekom, acknowledges these complications and frames the measure as one element in a broader strategy.
Experts noted that banning access outright without strengthening family, school and community supports would leave children vulnerable in other ways. Policies focused solely on account deletion or technical blocks could push young users to less-regulated services or workarounds.
| Country | Minimum age reported | Implementation note |
|---|---|---|
| Australia | 16 | Platforms must take reasonable steps to prevent under-16s holding accounts (from 10 Dec 2025) |
| Indonesia | 16 | Reported to have introduced similar restrictions |
| United Kingdom | Planned restrictions | Certain services to be unavailable to younger users from 2027 |
Any South African policy will also need to consider inequality of access. For many children, digital services are both a source of risk and an avenue for education, social connection and information. Policymakers will have to balance safety measures with ensuring equitable opportunities to learn digital skills under safe conditions.
The debate is ongoing. Advocates for an age restriction say it could shield children’s developmental time and reduce exposure to harm. Critics warn that without broad, well-resourced support from parents, schools, government and industry, a legal threshold alone will not solve the deeper problems associated with children’s online lives.
Further reporting is needed on how South African legislators and regulators will respond to the international momentum for age limits, and on practical options for enforcement and complementary child‑development programmes.
