Australia led the charge on banning children younger than 16 from social media platforms such as Instagram and TikTok, and now much of the Asia-Pacific region — with its young, tech-savvy markets — is eager to follow. The collective push would be impossible for tech platforms to ignore.
Indonesia plans to implement its restrictions later this month, while India’s Karnataka state, home to tech hub Bengaluru, along with Malaysia and Vietnam, have proposed similar rules.
The appeal is obvious. These measures are politically popular and ultra-wealthy Big Tech heads are easy villains. The push also comes as social media giants face their own “Big Tobacco” reckoning at home, confronting thousands of lawsuits that allege their products were designed to hook young users at the expense of their safety and mental health — claims the companies vehemently deny.
Illustration: Mountain People
It has become clear that age limits are good politics, but are they effective policy? They might prove to be a useful stopgap, but they also let governments and tech companies dodge the harder fight.
Despite Meta Platforms Inc chief executive officer Mark Zuckerberg’s complaint that age verification is “very difficult,” blocking a 14-year-old from Instagram might be easier than confronting a billion-dollar-business model. A company that knows its users well enough to sell highly targeted ads, and promises a future of super-intelligent personalized artificial intelligence (AI) agents, should not pretend that a more credible age check is beyond its powers.
Still, the enforceability debate can sometimes feel like a sideshow. Society does not protect children with thresholds alone. You cannot get a driver’s license until a certain age, but after that there are seatbelt requirements and speed limits and a whole set of rules for the road to keep everyone safe.
More than three months since Australia’s ban, it is too early to see data on its outcomes. Jonathan Haidt, whose book The Anxious Generation helped inspire the Australian law, said in a podcast interview that it would take years to see the true impact.
However, if the data do not improve within five years, “I would then have to conclude that I was wrong in thinking that reducing social media use would improve mental health,” he added.
Still, he makes a compelling case that limits are worth trying because teen social media use is linked to a broader set of harms, from sextortion schemes to drug overdose deaths.
In the same interview, Haidt offered a more revealing point: He said he would “never” take the Internet away from children. The target, in his view, is social media, not the broader Web. This distinction is at the heart of the debate, and too often it gets lost.
Haidt recalled the earliest Web, during the 90s. It was messy, but it was also open. It helped isolated young people find information and community.
Today’s dominant platforms are more corrosive. They sort, rank and push content according to what would keep people scrolling. The question for policymakers is not just how to delay a teenager’s first login, but how to force companies to make these systems less manipulative for new users.
That starts with the algorithms. Facebook and Instagram each have 3 billion monthly users, an unthinkable global reach that is hard to unseat. Governments should demand far more transparency about what powers recommendation systems, how they amplify harmful material, and what safeguards exist for minors and adults alike.
They must set product standards that curb addictive features, strengthen content moderation, and force companies to invest much more on safety. It cannot continue taking a backseat to spending astronomical sums on AI and “metaverse” moonshots.
The debate over age limits can sometimes feel like an argument about yesterday’s Internet, like trying to block teens from joining Myspace when they have moved on to creating AI companions. The urgency is only rising. A 14-year-old should not be exposed to digitally undressed images of minors when they log online, but neither should 16-year-olds or even 30-year-olds.
It is not only Big Tech lobbyists raising objections to hardline bans. Psychologists, academics, local human rights advocates and the UN children’s agency have all warned that blunt restrictions can create new risks — from more personal data collection, more room for governments to police online speech and more incentives for youth to retreat to smaller, less visible corners of the Web.
These are not arguments for inaction, but demands for real guardrails.
The push for age limits is a welcome break from the fantasy that tech companies can police themselves, but a birthday is not a safety policy. Until governments regulate the systems driving harm, rather than merely the ages allowed to see it, they will still be targeting the users instead of the business model.
Catherine Thorbecke is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist covering Asia tech. Previously she was a tech reporter at CNN and ABC News. This column reflects the personal views of the author and does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners.
China’s supreme objective in a war across the Taiwan Strait is to incorporate Taiwan as a province of the People’s Republic. It follows, therefore, that international recognition of Taiwan’s de jure independence is a consummation that China’s leaders devoutly wish to avoid. By the same token, an American strategy to deny China that objective would complicate Beijing’s calculus and deter large-scale hostilities. For decades, China has cautioned “independence means war.” The opposite is also true: “war means independence.” A comprehensive strategy of denial would guarantee an outcome of de jure independence for Taiwan in the event of Chinese invasion or
A recent Taipei Times editorial (“A targeted bilingual policy,” March 12, page 8) questioned how the Ministry of Education can justify spending NT$151 million (US$4.74 million) when the spotlighted achievements are English speech competitions and campus tours. It is a fair question, but it focuses on the wrong issue. The problem is not last year’s outcomes failing to meet the bilingual education vision; the issue is that the ministry has abandoned the program that originally justified such a large expenditure. In the early years of Bilingual 2030, the ministry’s K-12 Administration promoted the Bilingual Instruction in Select Domains Program (部分領域課程雙語教學實施計畫).
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文) earlier this month said it is necessary for her to meet with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) and it would be a “huge boost” to the party’s local election results in November, but many KMT members have expressed different opinions, indicating a struggle between different groups in the party. Since Cheng was elected as party chairwoman in October last year, she has repeatedly expressed support for increased exchanges with China, saying that it would bring peace and prosperity to Taiwan, and that a meeting with Xi in Beijing takes priority over meeting
Philippine Department of Foreign Affairs spokesman for maritime affairs Rogelio Villanueva on Monday said that Manila’s claims in the South China Sea are backed by international law. Villanueva was responding to a social media post by the Chinese embassy alleging that a former Philippine ambassador in 1990 had written a letter to a German radio operator stating that the Scarborough Shoal (Huangyan Island, 黃岩島) did not fall within Manila’s territory. “Sovereignty is not merely claimed, it is exercised,” Villanueva said. The Philippines won a landmark case at the Permanent Court of Arbitration in 2016 that found China’s sweeping claim of sovereignty in
RSS