The unease around children and social media did not erupt as a scandal. It accumulated. It showed up first as anomalies rather than arguments: a school counsellor noticing patterns that did not resemble ordinary teenage angst, a pediatric ward seeing the same kinds of crises recur with unfamiliar triggers, parents sensing that something had shifted but lacking the language to describe it. For years, these signals were treated as background noise, anecdotal, statistically inconvenient. Social media companies countered with dashboards and averages, governments with hesitations, and societies with a familiar shrug. Then, slowly, the question changed. It stopped being about whether social media was broadly good or bad for young people and became something narrower, darker, and harder to resolve: what happens when systems designed for maximum engagement intersect with immature psychology at scale.
That reframing explains why the global response now looks less like debate and more like intervention. When Australia moved in late 2025 to bar anyone under sixteen from holding a social media account, the decision was widely described as radical, even reactionary. But the logic behind it was not moralistic. Lawmakers were explicit that most children would probably have been fine without the ban, just as most drivers never crash without seatbelts. The concern lay elsewhere, in the outcomes that could not be undone once they occurred. The law was written with an acceptance of friction, evasion, and imperfection. It was not built on the fantasy of total compliance. It was built on the idea that reducing exposure even partially could meaningfully reduce irreversible harm, and that the burden of adaptation should fall on platforms rather than families.
What followed was not imitation but reinterpretation. In the United Kingdom, policymakers avoided outright prohibitions and instead focused on how platforms behave when children are present. The emphasis shifted toward age-appropriate design, algorithmic responsibility, and the quiet mechanics of recommendation systems. The underlying assumption was that harm does not arise solely from access, but from amplification, from feedback loops that reward extremity, comparison, and compulsive engagement. The goal was not to exile children from the digital world, but to dull its sharpest edges.
Across northern Europe, countries with strong digital infrastructure leaned into age verification and parental mediation frameworks, treating the presence of minors online as a governance problem rather than a cultural one. Elsewhere, in France, attention turned toward transparency and the reduction of manipulative design features, reflecting a belief that exposure alone is not the enemy, but unmanaged intensity is.
Outside Europe, the motivations broadened further. In Indonesia, the conversation around children and social media sits alongside concerns about misinformation, rapid behavioural contagion, and the speed at which online narratives can spill into the physical world. Regulation there has focused less on psychological language and more on stability, responsibility, and platform accountability. South Korea, shaped by earlier experiences with digital overexposure, has continued to refine usage limits, warning systems, and design constraints, treating excessive engagement as a public health concern rather than a moral failing.
China’s approach, often cited but rarely examined carefully, reflects a different historical relationship with technology and youth development. Restrictions there are framed less as censorship than as containment, premised on the belief that unbounded digital immersion during formative years produces social costs that surface much later and are far harder to correct. Whether one agrees with the method or not, the underlying diagnosis mirrors that of other countries: that unchecked digital environments can shape behaviour in ways that overwhelm individual choice.
The most recent shift came from the United Arab Emirates, whose new child digital safety framework avoided dramatic bans altogether. Instead, it treated children as a distinct category within the digital ecosystem, entitled to default protections rather than optional tools. Data collection thresholds, advertising constraints, parental controls, and content classification were folded into a single architecture. The law did not ask whether children should be online. It assumed they would be, and focused instead on lowering the intensity, persistence, and exploitability of their exposure. It was less about discipline and more about design.
Taken together, these moves suggest a global convergence that is easy to misread. This is not a coordinated moral backlash against technology, nor a sudden loss of faith in young people. It is a recognition that some systems do not distribute harm evenly, and that the worst outcomes, though rare, carry disproportionate weight. The average child may navigate social media without lasting damage. The problem lies with those who do not, and with the reality that when harm arrives through digital channels, it often arrives quickly, privately, and with limited opportunity for intervention.
This is why the conversation has shifted away from screen time limits and parental responsibility alone. Those tools presume linear effects and rational moderation. But social platforms are not neutral spaces. They are adaptive systems, constantly optimising for attention, capable of steering behaviour subtly but persistently. When those systems interact with developing minds, the consequences are not always visible until they are severe.
It is within this global context that Pakistan now finds itself. The country did not drive the early stages of this debate, but it is increasingly shaped by it. Pakistan’s digital landscape is defined by rapid mobile adoption, a young population, and platforms that function simultaneously as classrooms, marketplaces, social spaces, and sources of identity. Social media fills gaps left by strained institutions and fragmented public infrastructure. For many families, it is not optional.
When legislators in Pakistan proposed restricting social media access for under-sixteens, the proposal echoed everyone else’s language but collided with local complexity. Questions emerged immediately, not only about enforcement, but about unintended consequences. How would access be verified? What would happen to educational use, peer support, early entrepreneurship, or civic engagement? The bill was pulled back for revision, but the impulse behind it did not disappear.
Pakistan’s challenge is not choosing whether to regulate, but how to do so without compounding risk elsewhere. Partial measures can blur boundaries. Protective intent can quietly expand scope. At the same time, inaction leaves families to negotiate systems that were never designed with their realities in mind. Algorithms do not adapt to cultural context. They do not pause for institutional capacity. They operate at speed.
The deeper issue is not whether children should be shielded from the internet, but whether societies are willing to treat digital environments as spaces that require structural responsibility. Roads were not made safer by asking drivers to be careful. Medicines were not regulated by trusting patients to self-dose. In each case, harm became visible first at the margins, among those least equipped to absorb it.
Pakistan is approaching that same inflection point. The choices ahead will likely be incremental, shaped by global precedents and domestic constraints. But the direction is unmistakable. The era in which childhood and social media were left to informal norms is ending. What replaces it will be imperfect, contested, and evolving. The real question is whether the system that emerges is designed to fail gently, or whether it waits for damage before responding. In the background of every policy draft, every regulatory tweak, is an unspoken calculation: how much harm is tolerable, and who bears it. That calculation is now being made everywhere, whether openly or not. Pakistan is no exception.
Follow the SPIN IDG WhatsApp Channel for updates across the Smart Pakistan Insights Network covering all of Pakistan’s technology ecosystem.
