Social media ban for under-16s provides crucial support for parents, says academic

 Galvin Lee of Taylor’s College says it is unrealistic to expect parents to constantly monitor their children’s interactions across multiple platforms in real time.

The minimum age requirement of 16 for social media use, aimed at protecting children from exploitation and exposure to inappropriate online content, is expected to be enforced as early as July. (Envato Elements pic)

PETALING JAYA:

 The government’s decision to implement a ban on social media use for children under the age of 16 will provide crucial support to parents who cannot realistically manage online harm alone, says an academic.

Galvin Lee of Taylor’s College said while good parenting plays a vital role, it is unrealistic to expect parents to constantly monitor their children’s interactions across multiple platforms in real time.

“Responsibility should be shared, but not equally.

“Parents should set norms, conversations, routines, and boundaries, but they cannot be the sole line of defence against industrial-scale digital systems built to capture attention,” he told FMT.

Galvin Lee.

Lee, who has written about social media as well as consumer behaviour in the past, added that these platforms are not doing enough to protect younger users.

The implementation of a minimum age requirement of 16 for social media use, aimed at protecting children and adolescents from exploitation and exposure to inappropriate online content, is expected to be enforced as early as July.

Communications minister Fahmi Fadzil previously said children under 16 would not be allowed to open their own social media accounts, although parent-managed accounts would be allowed to reduce risks, such as contact from strangers.

The initiative is undergoing a test run, with discussions underway with platform providers to determine effective age-verification mechanisms.

Lee said Putrajaya’s intervention was both timely and “somewhat overdue”, noting that existing safeguards have yet to fully address risks faced by children online.

“Platforms have introduced more teen-safety tools, and Meta’s Teen Accounts are a meaningful example, but the broader evidence suggests these steps have not closed the gap between what companies promise and what regulators now expect.”

However, he acknowledged that parents face an uphill battle when it comes to monitoring their children’s social media use, as they are not only pushing against managing screen time, but also against a “system deliberately engineered to be immersive, persuasive, and difficult for children to disengage from”.

“That is why I do not think this issue can be reduced to parental responsibility alone, as the structural advantage still lies with the platform,” he said.

Benjamin Loh of Monash University Malaysia concurred, saying that parents face an uphill battle managing their children’s digital lives.

Benjamin Loh.

Loh, who lectures in media and communication, said such platforms are inherently built to maximise engagement, making them particularly difficult for parents to regulate.

“Platforms are not required to be transparent about how their algorithms operate. For parents, platforms are too complex at present and lack accessibility.

“This prevents them from curating their children’s access properly and with the right accountability,” he said.

On how responsibility should be shared between parents, platforms and regulators, Loh said the current approach places too much emphasis on regulatory restrictions, with platforms merely complying with the minimum extent as required by law.

“The truth of the matter is that the biggest responsibility lies with the platforms themselves. They lack transparency in how their algorithms operate, which means parents are not able to manage and control their children’s usage effectively,” he said, adding that these platforms need to be made more accountable. - FMT