CCC: Banning social media for children won’t build digital resilience but education will

 

THE Consumer Choice Centre (CCC) has strongly opposed the government’s proposal to impose a blanket ban on social media use for individuals under the age of 16 beginning in 2026, warning that the policy is unrealistic, unenforceable, and likely to create greater risks for young users rather than reducing harm.

While it recognised the importance of protecting minors from online dangers, the organisation argued that prohibition is the wrong tool for a complex digital policy issue.

Rather than improving safety, the ban risks pushing teenagers toward unsafe platforms, anonymous spaces, and circumvention tools that place them beyond the reach of parental guidance and regulatory protection.

CCC Malaysia Country Associate Tarmizi Anuwar further argued that the proposal reflects political optics rather than effective policymaking.

“Banning social media does not fix the underlying problem. It only hides it. This policy assumes access is the disease when in reality the real issue is education, behaviour, and guided responsibility,” he stressed.

Academic evidence shows bans do not solve the problem

A growing body of academic research warns that outright bans on adolescent social media use are unlikely to improve mental health or online safety in any meaningful way.

A 2024 study published by the reputable health journal JMIR Mental Health concluded that there is insufficient evidence to support blanket bans as an effective response to youth mental health concerns.

The paper argues that adolescent well-being is closely linked to emotional regulation skills and digital behaviour, rather than access itself. Removing access does not build self-control, resilience, or critical digital skills.

(Image: Socialinsider)

Additional research from Associate Professor Jennifer Alford at Griffith University and the Australian Academy of the Humanities supports this conclusion, warning that age bans are blunt policy tools that may delay digital maturity, suppress healthy online engagement, and limit access to social support networks for young people.

“If the objective is safer and stronger young users, the evidence points away from prohibition and toward education. A ban teaches avoidance, not responsibility,” Tarmizi added.

Delaying access does not build digital maturity

Tarmizi went on to warn that shielding young Malaysians from digital platforms until the age of 16 does not prepare them for a connected adult life.

“Social media today is a communication infrastructure. It is where young people learn social boundaries, information discernment, and interpersonal skills. Removing access does not create resilience. It postpones it,” he continued.

Digital maturity, he argued, is developed through careful exposure, guidance, and responsibility, rather than artificial isolation from technology, which remains unavoidable in modern society.

A smarter alternative: Education, responsibility, and choice

Tarmizi further urged the government to adopt forward-looking solutions that empower families and young people rather than impose universal restrictions.

He said policy efforts should focus on better digital education and media literacy in schools; stronger parental involvement and awareness; support for emotional resilience and critical thinking among young people; and preserving individual choice based on family values and maturity levels.

“Good policy builds capacity. Bad policy builds walls that young people climb anyway. We should build digitally confident young Malaysians, not raise a generation unprepared for the realities of online life,” Tarmizi pointed out. ‒  Focus Malaysia