Context

• The suicide of three sisters in Ghaziabad provoked national grief and immediate calls for strict action against digital platforms.
• Public anger often seeks a clear cause and a decisive response, and social media became the primary target.
• Yet complex social problems rarely yield to simple remedies. While online environments can intensify psychological distress among adolescents, a blanket prohibition risks replacing thoughtful policy with reaction.
• The challenge lies in protecting children without undermining their rights, autonomy, and participation in modern life.
• Effective solutions must therefore balance safety with access, focusing on responsible governance rather than elimination.

Social Media and Adolescent Mental Health

• Research consistently associates heavy social media use with anxiety, depression, self-harm, and body image dissatisfaction, particularly among teenage girls.
• Online comparison, cyberbullying, and constant performance pressure can aggravate emotional vulnerability.
• These findings warrant concern but require careful interpretation. Digital exposure rarely operates as a single cause; instead, it interacts with loneliness, academic stress, or family conflict.
• Overstating its influence risks ignoring broader psychological and social contexts. The issue is therefore not whether harm exists, but how society should address it without restricting opportunity.

Global Responses and the Rise of Moral Panic

• International Policy Trends
  • Governments across the world have pursued strict regulation.
  • Australia has barred users under sixteen from major platforms through mandatory age verification, while Spain has proposed similar measures and legal liability for harmful algorithms.
  • These policies promise swift protection and visible accountability.
• The Concept of Moral Panic
  • Such reactions reflect a moral panic, where a complex problem is attributed to a single identifiable threat.
  • A technological villain offers emotional clarity and political reassurance. However, symbolic crackdowns seldom resolve underlying causes.
  • Emotional satisfaction can overshadow careful analysis, resulting in policies that appear decisive yet produce limited real-world benefit.

Why a Social Media Ban Would Fail in India?

• Technical Ineffectiveness
  • Restrictions are easily bypassed. Adolescents often possess higher digital literacy than regulators and can access platforms through VPNs or alternative applications.
  • Prohibitions may push users into unregulated or encrypted spaces, increasing exposure to grooming, extremism, and exploitation.
  • Mandatory surveillance through identity verification also raises privacy risks.
• Ignoring the Social Value of Digital Platforms
  • For many teenagers, especially those in marginalised settings, online spaces offer community, belonging, and support.
  • Rural youth, socially isolated adolescents, and LGBTQ individuals rely on digital networks to express identity and seek advice.
  • Removing access may deepen isolation rather than improve well-being.
• Democratic Deficit in Policymaking
  • Policies affecting young people often exclude their voices. Adolescents are treated as passive subjects instead of participants.
  • A meaningful democracy requires consultation, listening, and recognition of lived experiences.
  • Regulation designed without youth engagement risks misunderstanding both problems and solutions.
• Reinforcing Gender Inequality
  • A prohibition would likely intensify gender disparities. Internet access in India already favours boys over girls.
  • Within conservative households, restrictions would lead families to confiscate devices primarily from daughters, limiting education, skills, and mobility.
  • A protective measure could therefore entrench inequality rather than reduce harm.

A Better Policy Approach

• Regulating Technology Companies
  • Attention must shift from controlling children to governing corporations. Platform algorithms are designed to maximise engagement and profit.
  • Governments should impose enforceable duty of care obligations, establish competition law, and require accountability for harmful design practices.
  • An independent regulator with technical expertise would be better suited than general administrative authorities.
• Promoting Research and Youth Participation
  • Comprehensive research is needed to understand how online behaviour varies across class, caste, and region.
  • Long-term studies should inform policy rather than speculation. Young people must participate directly in consultation processes, shaping interventions that affect their daily lives.

The Way Forward

• Expanding the Debate: Artificial Intelligence and Child Safety
  • Concerns about harm extend beyond social media. Increasing reliance on AI chatbots for advice and emotional support introduces new risks.
  • Excessive dependence may create cognitive weakness in critical thinking and expose minors to inappropriate interactions.
  • Consistent standards are required across all digital technologies, not selective regulation.
• Toward a Healthy Media Ecology
  • Technology is neither inherently beneficial nor inherently harmful. Its effects depend on structure, incentives, and guidance.
  • A balanced media ecology requires education, supervision, and responsible design.
  • Rather than absolute acceptance or rejection, society must cultivate informed use and ethical innovation.

Conclusion

• Public grief after the Ghaziabad tragedy generated urgent demands for bans, but prohibition offers only the illusion of control.
• It would be technically ineffective, socially damaging, democratically weak, and potentially discriminatory.
• Meaningful protection lies in regulating corporations, strengthening research, and involving young citizens in governance.
• By prioritising thoughtful regulation over reaction, society can protect mental health while preserving opportunity, ensuring both safety and dignity for the next generation.