Children under 16 spend nearly five hours daily on social media, according to recent US trials against Meta and Google. These companies were found negligent in designing harmful products for minors.
While age bans like Australia's and Austria's focus on restricting access, the real issue lies in product design. Governments are beginning to treat social media as an environment engineered for maximum engagement, shifting liability from users to designers.
The US verdict highlights the need for design-level interventions such as prohibiting harmful features and regulating algorithms. Such measures are more effective but harder to implement than simple age restrictions. Corporate responses range from altruistic calls for bans to compliance theater aimed at protecting their user bases.
Meanwhile, parents face immense pressure from economic systems that lack support for screen-dependent parenting. Regulation must address not just platforms but also the broader economic conditions driving excessive screen time. Countries like Australia and China enforce design mandates, placing responsibility on platforms, while the US relies on case-by-case litigation.
Enforcement remains challenging, with invasive identity verification raising privacy concerns. The UK's response and appeals in the US verdict will shape future regulations. Inclusion of the Global South is crucial for effective governance.
The question isn't whether to regulate, but whether there's structural incentive to regulate well.