As nations like Australia, the UK, and members of the EU pass sweeping laws to keep under-16s off social media, South Africa is reaching its own critical crossroads.
Decisions about screen time and platform access were once left solely to families, but growing concerns over predatory behaviour, addictive algorithms, and mental health are pushing governments to step in.
Now, local experts are urging South Africa to consider whether it's time to legislate online youth safety before screen time completely replaces childhood.
Increasingly, governments are deciding these are questions they cannot leave entirely to families.
Australia introduced a national minimum age of 16 for accounts on designated social media platforms in December 2025. Indonesia has since introduced restrictions for under-16s, while the United Kingdom plans to prevent under-16s from using certain social media services from March 2027.
The European Union has also joined the debate. European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen has proposed an EU-wide system preventing children under 13 from having social media accounts, while 13- and 14-year-olds would have access only to limited, parent-supervised accounts.
The proposal still has to go through the EU's legislative process.
So where does South Africa fit in?
What children lose when screens take over
Linique Hanekom, whose work at North-West University’s Centre for Health and Human Performance includes neurodevelopmental disorders, early communication intervention, and language and specific learning disorders, believes South Africa should seriously consider an under-16 age restriction.
But she prefers the term “age restriction” rather than 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,” she says.
For Hanekom, the issue is not about how many hours a child spends looking at a screen, but what happens during that time.
“The issue is not simply what a screen does to a child; it is what the screen may prevent the child from doing.”
For young children especially, she says, real human interaction is essential to development. Language is learned through interaction, including sharing attention, taking turns, reading facial expressions and body language, asking questions, responding and learning how to resolve misunderstandings.
Research supports the importance of context.
A 2024 systematic review and meta-analysis published in JAMA Pediatrics, covering 100 studies involving 176,742 children under six, found associations between greater programme viewing and poorer cognitive outcomes.
Age-inappropriate content and caregiver screen use during children's routines were also associated with poorer psychosocial outcomes, while co-use of screens with caregivers was positively associated with cognitive outcomes.
The evidence does not suggest that screens are inherently harmful; rather, how, why, and with whom children use them matters.
A parent’s reality
For Louanne Chamberlain, whose 15-year-old twins have grown up alongside the rapid expansion of smartphones and social media, the risks are not theoretical.
“I believe that social media is an invaluable tool, but at the same time can be the root of all evil,” she says.
When her daughter was 10, an unknown man approached her on Instagram and asked her for adult content. Fortunately, she told her mother immediately.
The family blocked and reported the account, but the experience changed how they viewed online safety.
Her son was later shown by a family friend how to access adult content on Reddit.
Even after parental controls were introduced, inappropriate material could still reach the children through friends.
There have also been difficulties around how teenagers communicate with one another. Chamberlain says her daughter has received disparaging messages and been caught up in group conversations involving accusations and angry exchanges.
“It has become easier through social media to send things without thought of the consequences to the person on the receiving end,” she says.
At the same time, Chamberlain is careful not to attribute every change in her children's behaviour to social media.
“They hole themselves in their rooms with their phones, but this is also normal teenage behaviour with or without social media and devices.”
That distinction is important because the evidence around social media and young people's wellbeing remains complex. There are risks, but there are also educational, social and creative benefits.
UNICEF South Africa warns that children can encounter inappropriate content, online harassment, misinformation, privacy risks and potentially harmful contact, while also recognising the educational and social opportunities provided by the internet.
When school needs the phone
One of the biggest challenges in South Africa is that smartphones are increasingly part of school life.
When Chamberlain's twins were younger, screen time was relatively easy to control to a limited time of about an hour a day.
That changed when they reached Grade 5, and their school required mobile phones for assessments and online work. Microsoft and Google Classroom became part of everyday schooling.
By Grade 8, managing phone use had become considerably more difficult.
There were class groups, grade groups, sport and extracurricular groups, homework groups and friendship groups. Homework could be shared late in the evening, while research assignments sometimes required internet access.
“The challenge is real, and it is very hard,” she says.
She believes an under-16 restriction could make it easier to manage inappropriate content, but questions how effective it would be.
“Kids are clever and figure out how to get around this.”
What would children lose?
There is also another side to the debate.
“Social media opens the world to our children,” Chamberlain says.
Her children can access information, courses and opportunities from around the world. Her daughter, who does modelling, has also benefited professionally from social media, with guidance from her modelling school about what can safely be shared online.
For Chamberlain, that makes any government restriction “bittersweet”.
The potential benefits could include reducing children's exposure to predators and inappropriate material, encouraging more face-to-face interaction and creating more space for activities away from screens.
The disadvantages include less contact with family and friends overseas and greater pressure on parents to assist with schoolwork and online learning.
She also believes that children who are accustomed to unrestricted internet access could struggle with an abrupt change.
If restrictions are introduced, she believes there should be a transition plan and support for both parents and children.
It cannot be left to parents alone
That is where Hanekom's argument extends beyond age restrictions.
Parents can delay social media accounts, keep phones out of bedrooms at night and establish periods when the family is together without screens, but that responsibility cannot sit with parents alone.
Schools can introduce phone-free periods, teach digital and media literacy, and explain how algorithms, advertising and influencers shape what children see.
Government can establish stronger child-safety standards, parental controls, reporting mechanisms and transparency requirements for technology companies.
Platforms themselves also have a role to play in how their products are designed.
“We need to move away from a model where children are expected to adapt to platforms designed primarily to maximise engagement,” Hanekom says.
Australia's experience illustrates the scale of the challenge. In the first half of December 2025, platforms removed access to about 4.7 million accounts identified as belonging to under-16s.
But the Australian restrictions do not remove young people from the internet altogether. Under-16s can still access publicly available social media content without logging into an account, while services such as Google Classroom and many messaging and educational platforms fall outside the restrictions.
For South Africa, the question is therefore unlikely to be simply whether children should have access to technology.
It is how to ensure technology becomes part of childhood without replacing the relationships, interaction and experiences children need while they are growing up.
“Technology should become part of childhood without becoming a substitute for childhood,” Hanekom says.
willem.vdputte@nationalmg.co.za