Digital Childhood | Part 2 — Can a Social Media Age Limit Protect a Child on Its Own?

Australia brought its regulation prohibiting social media accounts for children under sixteen into force in December 2025. Similar steps are being discussed in Europe, and the issue periodically arises in Türkiye. Families’ interest in this debate is entirely natural. They want to protect their children from harmful content, screen dependency, cyberbullying, and the risk of abuse.

According to the latest Turkish Statistical Institute research, more than 91 percent of children aged six to fifteen in Türkiye use the internet. With use so widespread, expecting an age limit alone to resolve these problems seems excessively optimistic to me.

On many platforms today, age checks depend on the date of birth users enter themselves. A child can easily claim to be older, use an older sibling’s or mother’s account, or move to another application with weaker oversight. While the family relaxes, believing “we have solved the problem,” the child may be alone in a space the family knows nothing about.

UNICEF also emphasizes that age restrictions alone are insufficient and should be considered alongside safe design, child-friendly reporting channels, and family support. Rules may be necessary, but they must be enforceable and subject to oversight.

Part of the problem lies in design

What keeps a child on screen is not simply their willpower. Infinite scrolling, automatically playing videos, like notifications, and easy messaging are designed to keep users on a platform as long as possible. Expecting a child to exercise self-control against designs even adults struggle to resist is unrealistic.

A substantial share of responsibility therefore rests with companies. Children’s accounts should open with the safest settings by default, strangers’ ability to message children should be restricted, and reports of harmful content should trigger a prompt response. If sensitive data such as identity documents or facial images are requested for age verification, companies must also clearly explain how those data are stored and when they are deleted. Creating a new data risk in the name of protecting children is unacceptable.

An adult who does not know which applications a child uses, and has never seen how they work, will struggle to provide guidance. Brief digital safety sessions at school parent meetings, regular training for school counselors, and families reviewing privacy settings together with their children are small but effective steps.

An age limit may serve as a gate. But platforms design the world behind that gate, and sooner or later the child will pass through it. Our task is to build an environment now in which a child receiving a disturbing message can report it easily and discuss it at home without fearing punishment.