Daybreak - Is banning social media for children a cure or a cop-out?

Episode Date: January 29, 2026

This week, Goa said it is actively considering a ban on social media for children under 16, inspired by Australia’s new law. Andhra Pradesh has also set up a panel to examine whether similar restrictions could work there. The push reflects rising anxiety around teen mental health, cyberbullying, and exposure to harmful online content. Supporters argue platforms are unsafe by design and impossible to regulate through guardrails alone. Critics question whether bans can keep up with technology or address deeper social issues. In this episode, hosts Snigdha Sharma and Rachel Varghese step back from the rhetoric to ask what a ban would actually mean for children, parents, and platforms. Daybreak is produced from the newsroom of The Ken, India’s first subscriber-only business news platform. Subscribe for more exclusive, deeply-reported, and analytical business stories.

Hi, this is Rohan Dharma Kumar. If you've heard any of the Ken's podcast, you've probably heard me. My interruptions, my analogies and my contrarian takes on most topics. And you might rightly be wondering why am I interrupting this episode too. It's for a special announcement. For the last few months, I and Sita Raman Ganeshan, my colleague and the Ken's deputy editor, have been working on an ambitious new podcast. It's called Intermission.

We want to tell the secret sauce stories of India's greatest companies. Stories of how they were born, how they fought to survive, how they build their organizations and culture, how they manage to innovate and thrive over decades, and most importantly, how they're poised today. To do that, Sita and I have been reading books, poring over reports, going through financial statements, digging up archives, and talking to dozens of people. And if that wasn't enough, we also decided to throw in video into the mix. Yes, you heard that right. Intermission has also had to find its footing in the world of multi-camera shoots in professional studios,

laborious editing and extensive post-production. Sita and I are still reeling from the intensity of our first studio recording. Intermission launches on March 23rd. To get alert, as soon as we release our first video. episode, please follow intermission on Spotify and Apple Podcast or subscribe to the Ken's YouTube channel. You can find all of the links at the ken.com slash I am. With that, back to your episode. Hello, this is Daybreak from the Ken.

I'm Snickda. And I'm Rachel. And today we're talking about a question that governments around the world are suddenly asking out loud. Should children under 16 be kept off social media altogether? And the immediate trigger for this conversation is actually right here in India. This week, Goa said that it is considering a ban on social media for children under 16, explicitly inspired by Australia, which, by the way, has already passed a law enforcing platforms to block younger users.

And this isn't just Goa thinking aloud. Andhra Pradesh has also set up a panel to study whether a similar move is possible there. So this idea, which would have sounded extreme even a year ago, is now being seriously discussed at the state level. And what is driving it is this growing sense of alarm about children's mental health. Over the last decade, rates of anxiety, depression, cyberbullying and self-harm among teenagers has risen sharply. And for many policy makers, social media sits right at the center of that story. So their argument goes something like this.

These platforms are built for engagement and growth, not for children. Parents can't realistically monitor everything and schools are dealing with the fallout. And companies, they have very little incentive to slow things down on their own. So the state steps in. But there is also a lot of unease about what a ban actually achieves. Critics have pointed out that kids will find workarounds, that removing access does not automatically fix loneliness or pressure and that banning something can sometimes feel like action

but without really addressing what is going on underneath. This isn't a simple good versus bad tech debate. What we wanted to really talk about is responsibility and control and how much faith we have in these bans as a policy tool. Right. So, ultimately the question is this. Does banning social media actually protect children? Or does it just make adults feel better about themselves?

Welcome to Daybreak, a business podcast from the Kemp. I'm your host, Nick Das Sharma. And I'm Rachel Virgis and every day of the week, we bring you one story that is worth understanding and worth your time. Today is Friday, the 30th of January. So let me start with the biggest point in favour of social media bans. Okay. And of course, we all know this.

It's the effect it has on mental health. And, you know, like you and I both remember, it's been a developing conversation since, like, the launch of Instagram. You know, we've been seeing people talk about how it sets up unrealistic expectations for life in general and how it can cause depression and anxiety. When you are seeing other people live a life that you feel you should be living, but you're not. And I think social media is creating a pressure to perform in a way we never had to deal with before.

And, you know, I remember a couple of years ago, I was seeing so many of my college peers go for their masters and like study abroad programs and sometimes even take like fancy vacations during pandemic while everybody else was isolating in their own homes. And I was working from home at this point. So it got actually pretty tough to stay on the platform. And there were multiple reasons for me to delete Instagram at that point. But I think this constant need to compare and match other people's lifestyles that I didn't have the resources to live was a very big one. But to be very honest, I think I'd still count myself as one of the lucky ones. Like,

even when I was younger, I wasn't exposed to very like traumatic or disturbing content online. And I was also actually making online friends who were very nice, very welcoming, mostly fandom stuff. So no stranger danger to like speak off as such. But that's obviously not the case for everyone. Right. No, no. That actually totally makes sense, Rachel. But okay, let me start with. with mental health. Okay, first, because like you said, it is the strongest argument, which is in favour of a blanket ban

of social media for kids. And yes, 100% I agree that issues like anxiety, depression, suicide rates, they've all been rising in the last decade or so. But I feel like when we talk about this, we need to be really careful here because social media is not the cause. You know, yes, it is making things worse.

But there are studies. that are showing that kids who actually already have existing mental health issues tend to use social media more. Because why? It is like an outlet, you know? It is a distraction, you know? So, for example, if they have family, toxic families or, you know, such issues, right? That is a big issue.

And also, I think what we're ignoring here is also how the world itself, every day we're seeing this, we talk about this. It's lurching towards so much chaos. Look at politics. Look at, I don't know, I don't even know to mention his name. Look at the environment, you know. There's so much economic pressure as a result of all of these things, right? Which also leads to more academic pressure in schools.

AI has entered the scene. Let's not forget that a good chunk of this decade was also hijacked by the pandemic. How did that affect us? How did it affect children, you know, who would not be. able to lead normal lives. I don't understand how we can wash over all of these realities. Yeah. So, you know, also this is my personal opinion.

I don't think keeping these realities away from children is the solution. You know, it's a little bit like telling kids Santa Claus is real. I don't know how that helps. Kids are very smart these days as we all accept. And I think this is a way of underestimating their intelligence. Also, another point, I feel like this can have a counter effect, you know, because what happens when these kids who you have kept away from social media, they don't even know how it works, right, till the age of 16,

and suddenly at 16, they're thrown into this crazy world with such harsh realities. How do you think they're going to deal with this? You know, and also real evidence, you know, if you look at it, all of these studies, they point to correlation, you know, of the rise of mental health issues with the rise in use of social media. But it does not prove causation. Social media is not the cause. Also, yeah. Also, another uncomfortable truth, right? There are a whole bunch of kids who use social media without becoming clinically depressed or suicidal. Of course, we don't talk about them.

So I think this sort of a blanket ban on social media for kids is like putting a band-aid on a bullet wound. And another point that you mentioned, body image issues, right? My argument with that is also the same. Because look at popular culture, look at movies, look at music, everything in between for decades. It's already made it pretty bad, you know? Social media just made it worse, okay, you know?

But what lies at the core of work? why we suffer from body image issues. It's patriarchy. You know, a man's idea of what a woman should look like. So how will this social media ban change that? Right. I don't think I disagree with you on this at all. The fact that social media is definitely not a causal effect for any mental health crisis.

But I do believe very strongly that they really worsen underlying existing issues and makes it so easy to hyper-focus on because you're constantly. constantly have this thing in your hand and you're being bombarded by messages and narratives by all these convincing people who are telling you how to live life and how to see life and how to see all the people who surround you. And of course, patriarchal systems already exist. But being exposed to rhetorics like what we see in the so-called manosphere is having real-life consequences and you can't deny that. We are seeing a rise in the radicalization of young boys because of narratives from creators like Andrew Tate who are expressly encouraging. young men to see women as inferior and even advocating for assault and other extreme measures as correctional methods to make sure that these women are always submissive to these men.

And crimes against women are consistently at an all-time high. And if you remember the show Adolescence that won multiple awards last year, it talks about something exactly like this, about how boys who are constantly exposed to narratives like these just see women as objects and are driven to react with actual harm. when real women in the real world don't match these expectations. And see, another thing that the series touches on is how cyberbullying is becoming an increasingly huge problem.

And numbers from India actually do back this up. There's a study from 2024 that showed that 14.5% of teenagers online have experienced cyberbullying in one way or another. And with cyber bullying, of course, other issues come up, like when people are depressed or upset about things happening in real life, they turn towards content that mirrors that feeling, which unfortunately glorifies self-harm or suicide.

In fact, in this Facebook study I mentioned earlier, they found that 13% of children in the UK and 6% of US users trace their desire to kill themselves back to Instagram. Wow. Actually, you know, I'm very glad that you brought up this show, Adolescence, and you're absolutely right. It shows how young boys are constantly exposed to these truly disgusting narratives

inspired by the likes of Andrew Tate and Jordan Peterson, so-called doctor, that encourages them to think of women in this really derogatory way. But, you know, I thought what that series really, really exposed is how adults, grown-ups are so bad at understanding children and their psychology.

Because think about it, okay? When would a child fall for this sort? of trash online. Let's imagine a kid growing up in a home that is equal, loving, is teaching him to question things. He's seeing his father treat his mother with a lot of respect, with a lot of love. You know, every single day, you know, it's not like a one-off. Do you think this child would fall for this rubbish online so easily? No, right?

So in these situations where this does happen, you know, it's the underlying issue is the loneliness, it is the fear, the anxiety, the alienation, all of it, all of it is already there, you know, because of whatever circumstances, and that has nothing to do with social media. And the adults do not realize this. And this is exactly what is depicted in the show Adolescence. So when we say this in-cell culture or manosphere problem comes from online, I think we're dodging the harder question.

Why are these kids, especially? especially younger boys feeling so alienated, you know, it comes from home, it comes from school, and this really twisted idea of masculinity. Trigger warning. But you must have heard about this recent rape case in Delhi. It was a six-year-old girl. She was raped by three teenage boys. The oldest of those three boys was 13.

How does that make sense? You can't blame this just to social media, right? That is why I think a ban like this, a blanket ban, is just like taking a paracetamol to get rid of the fever when the actual cause of the fever could be way more serious. And that is the one that needs to be fixed first. It needs more attention. And when we take this paracetamol, it has an opposite effect. I got rid of the symptom and then suddenly I fell sick and guess what? Turns out it's cancer.

Last stage, too late. So, yes, of course, harmful content should be pushed back. It needs to be controlled. We need to demand for guardrails. That is my opinion, not a ban. Right. I think that's true. Definitely, whatever's going on in the manosphere is more of a symptom than the disease.

Like, patriarchy has been here for a long time. And we're going through so much economic uncertainty. and there's so much changing now with the rise of feminism and things like that. Obviously men feel threatened and this is how they show that they're feeling threatened. And that being said, I still feel like it just increases the read so much. Like Andrew Tate's message is going out to millions of kids, millions of older, younger men throughout the world. And it's having real life consequences and because of free speech, you can't stop them from doing all of this. without like digital literacy,

like media literacy, you can't expect kids to understand that what they're saying is wrong, have that, you know, what do you call it? Like the discretion to understand that this is not right. And I think what a ban would help with is giving us like adults,

school teachers, parents, everybody, the time to teach kids to understand this kind of literacy. So that when they actually go into the world of social media, they're armed with certain tools to make sure that this kind of, of, you know, influence doesn't happen. And so, yeah, and obviously I think adults dumping phones and social media access into kids' hands is a terrible thing without this kind of knowledge.

And, but we also can't ignore the fact that especially in most working class families, parents simply don't have the time to monitor their kids all the time. And especially the devices. Like, think about it, the generational digital literacy divide is so well. that as a kid you can just delete your history and the fact that you'd get caught doing something you're not supposed to do is unlikely. And which brings me to my other point. Another reason why I think a ban might help

is because I genuinely believe that it might help both teenagers and adults advocate for more public infrastructure that encourages offline living. We've been seeing, especially over the last decade, a consistent lack of investment in creating and maintaining third spaces, which is actually a social environment that comes after your home, which is the first place and workplaces, which is the second. And there are basically spaces where people to just exist,

like hang out and build community in, you know? So we simply don't have parks and public libraries. The way we used to before, which are maintained and free or nominally priced at the very least, it's obviously a systematic problem with multiple layers. Like, also think about how weak public transport infrastructure is, which reduces the mobility of younger people who don't have access to their own vehicles or enough money for cab rides.

And of course, granted, all of this public infrastructure is suffering because it's also in keeping with general anxieties about children's safety and stranger danger. Like the case you mentioned just earlier, like how do you let kids go out into the world when things like this are happening? And you know how it became like from public parks,

malls became like the place to go to. And now even malls, And mall culture is slowly dying. And now, like, I think the most common third space is maybe like a cafe, which is obviously not free. And, of course, not all children can afford to hang out in cafes and restaurants. Like, my younger sister, she's like 19 right now. All her plans with friends include, like, going to a cafe, going to a restaurant.

And every time she has to ask her parents for money and they're like, oh, how much do you need and why do you need so much? That's a difficult conversation to have every time. So, of course, it needs. makes sense that children and teenagers end up seeking spaces online for connection and stimulation and it becomes a dependency. So I think a ban would actually force governments, city councils, etc., schools and parents to make sure that they're creating enough avenues for teenagers and kids to find that same stimulation and connection in real life.

Maybe introducing mandatory playtime in schools. That's both fun and child-driven. So you don't end up with girls pretending to be on their periods for the third. third time in that month. Or it could absolutely also incentivize reading culture and make sure that public libraries are actually stocked with books people want to read and not just educational

stuff and maybe some books that are trending on TikTok, I don't know. And of course it should mean that public spaces like parks and playgrounds are well maintained and that safety precautions are in place so that adults aren't scared to have their kids loiter, explore and get more in touch with nature and physical activity. So I think this will all naturally ease the burden of supervision from parents and adults

and lead kids away from relying on social media for enjoyment and entertainment. And it's far more difficult to have these harmful online rhetorics stick with you when you're experiencing real life and real life is proving to you that those rhetorics are wrong. Right. Okay, so first let me address what you just said about easing the burden of supervision from adults. because you mentioned this before as well, because parents don't have enough time because they're working, whatever reason.

I'll give you my controversial take on this, okay? I think people should not have kids if they do not have time for them. Okay? So what is this ban going to do? It is going to make it easier for parents, but the core issue still stays, right? Like, what you said about infrastructure as well, Rachel,

like, of course, I would love to live in this world where we have like these public spaces, these public libraries, amazing, you know. In theory, this ban should, according to what you said, force the government and other institutions that take care of children to set up this kind of infrastructure so that kids can spend their time offline. But I think that is a huge assumption that you're making because you're expecting the government will follow through. how do you know that that is going to happen realistically?

Like, I have not heard one instance where government has actually said when it comes to this issue, right, that after this ban, the first step it is going to take is it's going to redesign playgrounds or libraries or suddenly there'll be more funding, parks will be safer, you know, adults will have more time and attention. I've not heard this at all. So I feel like this is very idealistic assumption. Because look, okay, historically, we are not great at building these kind of offline alternatives quickly or even evenly, right? Especially when you look at places which are outside of cities and urban areas.

And I'm sure, actually I'm not sure, you know, supervision is actually going to become in some way easier automatically. because just because you're removing kids from online does not mean that children and their psychology is suddenly becoming less complex, right? And also I feel like this is too far a stretch. Many researchers have actually spoken about this, this transition from play-based to phone-based childhood. It sounds like a very powerful narrative, okay?

But it is too binary. You know, look at childhood, look at adolescence. It's always involved adaption, especially with technology, right? Also, again offline, somebody still has to do all the organizing, the play, to maintain all these safe spaces, to take care of who is struggling,

to notice who is being left out? Who is going to do all of that? Who is talking about it? You know? And also there's another thing. If you fix parks and libraries, that does not mean every teenager suddenly feels connected. Some kids will not fit easily into this organized sort of play group activities

because for them, online spaces are not just entertainment. For so many children, it's not entertainment, okay? This is where they find belonging. Think about children who suffer from bullying in school, okay? Who come from marginalized backgrounds where they are not included by others. Okay? What happens to them? online is often a very safe space for them to express right

to feel included and also to be honest I can also make the same argument the other way around okay the infrastructure should come no in the first place maybe then we would not have had this issue at all like if there were playgrounds and libraries and all these offline spaces

maybe then kids would not be suffering from this issue I completely agree I think these spaces should exist with or without a social media ban. And of course, the risk of some children being alienated will always be a problem. That has been a problem before social media. And it will continue to be a problem in the age of social media.

And if there is ever a post-social media age, then even then. But that being said, I think a strong stance against social media can make these changes manifest in real life. I know it's an idealistic assumption. And our governments have not had a history of, you know, hold. to their promises in any sort of way. And like you said, these promises haven't been made. But I think it having a ban and the risk of not having an alternative will push for stronger advocacy for these kind of infrastructure. And that should ideally push government and councils in the right direction.

And also bullying and othering is an issue that is both offline and online. I think that's a separate conversation. and it needs to begin with, again, adults doing a better job of raising kids to be kinder and friendlier with their peers. I don't think social media fixes it and in several cases makes it worse, like the cyberbullying numbers I mentioned earlier and which I also mentioned, what I mentioned earlier was how these hateful beliefs are always getting traction online and always attracting new people into the force because all the insecurities and frustrations you have about life, you're giving them a certain, like, enemy to project these feelings onto.

Look at how our country treats minorities, the narratives we have around minorities right now. Look at how America is treating immigrants at the moment. This is all happening because of some conversations online that have gotten traction and support and twisted people's realities in a way where they can't see the other person in front of them the way they actually are. there's also another thing to consider here, right? Like if you're saying stronger guardrails need to be in place on the platform itself and that platforms need to limit all that, then we're also assuming that platforms will comply.

Like if governments don't have incentives to comply when, you know, ideally governments should be for the people. Think about how companies aren't even for the people. They're for themselves. They're for their business models. And they're inherently rely on engaging. and whether it's cyberbullying or hate speech, that's all engagement and no platform is actually incentivized to limit any of that.

And you know that Facebook study I mentioned earlier about body image issues? That was actually an internal study that they did and they were just sitting on. They did not release it publicly and the platform knew exactly what was going on. But instead of releasing this information or involving policy makers, they prioritized their business in interests because if they released it publicly might have affected the usage. and because after all of this is said and done, they need to make their profits.

And this is a time-old business strategy, right? Like if you have millions of insecure, impressionable people at your fingertips, they are the most easiest demographic to market to. Like, you see influencers with porcelain skin and realize that that's not what your skin looks like, you will buy a ice water face mask or face wash. And you see conventionally fit people with flat stomachs and toned arms.

And if you see your own flab, and stretch marks. You will want to buy a gym membership maybe or a subscription to like a weekly, healthy meal kit. Boo-hoo. Or take a very, very recent example. Like what was happening with Grog. People were actually able to ask the AI

to undress pictures of actual miners on the platform. We actually covered this in an episode of Daybreak and we will link it and the show notes, please listen to it. Yeah. Yeah. And clearly these social media platforms do not have the best interests of children in mind.

Forget adults. And it's not going to ever be a priority because limiting the user base goes against the very principles it's built on. And you know, in Australia, two kids actually filed a case against the ban. And of course, social media companies were supporting them. So I think a ban is the only way to make sure some kind of a change takes actual hold. Because even if there are workarounds, it's not going to be something every kid will try, right? Like the moment you introduce friction, you lose users. and that's the case for any platform, for any demographic.

So when something is made straight up illegal, it also gives authority figures like parents an easy way to say no. Because now kids can't really feel that entitlement or the pressure just to be on those platforms to be quote unquote cool. Yeah. But I also feel like it's just kind of slowing down this spread of a fire and it's still a fire. you know and I 100% agree with you you cannot trust these platforms whose whole existence is actually dependent on engagement and growth they have no boundaries and that gawk example you gave is like really telling and very disturbing but you know what my issue is is this jump from this this idea or opinion that no actually it's not an idea or opinion it's a fact these platforms cannot be trusted

and then this jump to let's ban them. You know, I am not sure I'm okay with that. Because even with the grog problem, right, we discussed it on our episode and what did it ultimately boil down to? It boiled down to people, the people who are programming this AI chatbot, right? And if anything, it makes a case for a much stricter, very specific rules of what AI tools should do and cannot do, especially when it comes to minors. And also, I think a ban does not really solve this problem end to end, okay?

Kids will not disappear from this internet. Like you mentioned earlier, kids are very smart. They will find a turnaround. Okay, they will move to other platforms, other tools, which are probably less visible, but also no guardrails. Those platforms are not being analyzed or looked at or studied. So that means they are more unsafe, you know? And so basically there's no protection.

And actually, let me give you an example, right after this Australia ban happened. Not very, like within a week or so, this young teenage girl, she immediately found a way around it. Because what did this app want? It wanted facial assessment to determine her age. Okay. She took an old picture of her mother and put it in front of the camera. And then she got through. And she actually even went and told her mother, look, I got through.

you know. So maybe yes, it is harder. But I think it's this slow work that actually we need to focus on more. It's like this we need to build that understanding and write these laws that force these companies to design safer systems instead of pretending that we can just simply switch the internet off for teenagers and everything is going to be okay. And I think now we have gone on forever. I'm just looking at our clock in the studio. We have mostly covered everything that we had an opinion about, Rachel. Yeah.

Should we wrap it up? All right. Thank you, dear listeners, for tuning in. Please do write to us. I'm sure you all have some thoughts on this subject. Write to us at podcast at the ken.com with daybreak, social media ban for children in the subject line. If you're too lazy to do this, you can also leave us a comment on our YouTube channel. Yes, daybreak is on YouTube in case you did not know.

See you next week.