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.
Minister of Labor Hung Sun-han (洪申翰) on April 9 said that the first group of Indian workers could arrive as early as this year as part of a memorandum of understanding (MOU) between the Taipei Economic and Cultural Center in India and the India Taipei Association. Signed in February 2024, the MOU stipulates that Taipei would decide the number of migrant workers and which industries would employ them, while New Delhi would manage recruitment and training. Employment would be governed by the laws of both countries. Months after its signing, the two sides agreed that 1,000 migrant workers from India would
In recent weeks, Taiwan has witnessed a surge of public anxiety over the possible introduction of Indian migrant workers. What began as a policy signal from the Ministry of Labor quickly escalated into a broader controversy. Petitions gathered thousands of signatures within days, political figures issued strong warnings, and social media became saturated with concerns about public safety and social stability. At first glance, this appears to be a straightforward policy question: Should Taiwan introduce Indian migrant workers or not? However, this framing is misleading. The current debate is not fundamentally about India. It is about Taiwan’s labor system, its
Japan’s imminent easing of arms export rules has sparked strong interest from Warsaw to Manila, Reuters reporting found, as US President Donald Trump wavers on security commitments to allies, and the wars in Iran and Ukraine strain US weapons supplies. Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi’s ruling party approved the changes this week as she tries to invigorate the pacifist country’s military industrial base. Her government would formally adopt the new rules as soon as this month, three Japanese government officials told Reuters. Despite largely isolating itself from global arms markets since World War II, Japan spends enough on its own
On March 31, the South Korean Ministry of Foreign Affairs released declassified diplomatic records from 1995 that drew wide domestic media attention. One revelation stood out: North Korea had once raised the possibility of diplomatic relations with Taiwan. In a meeting with visiting Chinese officials in May 1995, as then-Chinese president Jiang Zemin (江澤民) prepared for a visit to South Korea, North Korean officials objected to Beijing’s growing ties with Seoul and raised Taiwan directly. According to the newly released records, North Korean officials asked why Pyongyang should refrain from developing relations with Taiwan while China and South Korea were expanding high-level
RSS