Fix the house: On social media and social media access for minors

📌 Summary:

• Context: PM Modi spoke favourably of Australia's 2024 decision to ban social media access for those aged 16 and below; Andhra Pradesh and Karnataka have publicly mulled similar bans, reviving the debate on regulating minors' access
• Core argument: An age-based access ban is the wrong lever; governments should instead change how platforms operate rather than police "who may enter"
• Causal chain / evidence gap: (a) social media use and poor mental health are associated, especially among girls, but how much is causal and under what conditions is still debated; (b) most studies are observational, so susceptible to reverse causation (already-depressed teens spend more time online); (c) effect sizes are small on average
• Nuance on harm: hours per day matters less than passive vs active engagement, and supportive vs hostile online communities
• Key data: Australia's ban is effectively a "natural experiment" with no real-world precedent; research estimates ~85% of 12-16-year-olds still use social media despite the ban
• Two-sided impact: harms include sleep disruption, cyber-bullying, addictive recommendation loops, and self-harm/eating-disorder content; benefits include maintaining friendships, identity exploration, peer support, and access to LGBTQIA+ communities and mental-health information
• Solutions proposed: adopt a stronger statutory "duty of care"; embed digital literacy in school curricula; restrict addictive UI/UX; mandate a chronological feed for minors; enforce stronger content moderation; improve privacy protections; introduce effective parental controls
• Comparative angle: some argue waiting for "perfect evidence" repeats the delayed action seen with tobacco regulation

🎯 UPSC Relevance: GS2/GS3 — regulation of social media, child rights and mental health, digital governance and "duty of care" models; evidence-based policymaking