Authorities say there is not yet enough evidence that a blanket ban would effectively protect children online.
South Africa has no legislation aimed at banning under-16s from using social media platforms to protect them from exposure to harmful content, cyberbullying, grooming, and exploitation. The Department of Communications and Digital Technologies (DCDT) maintains that there is no irrefutable evidence proving blanket bans prevent minors from being active online.
Multiple nations have enacted laws restricting social media access for children under 16, with New Zealand joining after pioneering efforts in Australia and subsequent measures in the UK, France, and other countries.
New Zealand has introduced legislation to ban social media access for children under 16, aiming to curb exposure to harmful content, addictive algorithms, and pressures that negatively impact mental health, sleep, and education. Key aspects of the proposal include requiring social media platforms to use rigorous age verification methods and placing legal obligations on platforms.
DCDT Minister Solly Malatsi said:
“We want the internet to be safe for all people, particularly children, and this is a key priority the Department of Communications and Digital Technologies will continue to pursue relentlessly in conjunction with several entities in our portfolio, including the Films and Publications Board (FPB) and the National Electronic Media Institute of South Africa (NEMISA).”
“Our stance is that there is currently no irrefutable indication that a general social media access ban for persons under 16 years old actually prevents them from being digitally active on such platforms.”
Malatsi shared that evidence is emerging that social media bans are being bypassed through misrepresentation and other means, raising questions about their effectiveness.
“We will continue to consider options to improve the safety of children online. This includes strengthening the work of the FPB and NEMISA, equipping children, teachers and caregivers with digital literacy skills, and continuing to engage with technology companies and social media platforms,”
Malatsi said, adding that all parties involved in keeping children safe to strengthen protection measures.
Portfolio Committee on Communications and Digital Technologies chairperson Khusela Sangoni Diko stated that the committee has not been briefed on any ban proposal. While policy development and implementation rests with the executive, Parliament maintains its oversight role.
The committee noted that despite the absence of specific policy or regulations governing platform regulation, the committee is considering using its powers to formally engage digital platforms regarding online harms and accountability.
Diko reiterated that the committee is unaware of any current government programme evaluating age-verification technologies for children’s social media access. Any future measures must comply with existing frameworks to protect children’s privacy and mitigate risks such as data misuse, profiling, and inaccurate age assessments.
Moreover, the Medium-Term Development Plan (MTDP) 2024–2029 aims for a “secured cyberspace” as a key national outcome, including protecting children from online harms. Existing laws (Films and Publications Act, Children’s Act, Criminal Law (Sexual Offences and Related Matters) Amendment Act, and Cybercrimes Act) already provide protections.
“The committee therefore believes that any proposed social media ban should be assessed on its effectiveness, proportionality, constitutional compliance and practical enforceability, with the primary consideration being whether it meaningfully enhances child protection and online safety outcomes,”
Diko said.
She added that the committee is considering the possibility of initiating new legislative frameworks, in line with its powers under the Parliamentary Rules, to address identified legislative gaps where there is a clear and compelling need for legislative intervention.
HJW Attorneys associate attorney Kayla Farrell stressed that South Africa lacks a law banning under-16s from social media, and no formal proposal to do so appears to be in the pipeline. Current laws deal with online content and data, not with who is allowed onto a platform. An outright ban would need a new law, and it would face real constitutional hurdles.
Farrell noted that an under-16 social media ban would infringe upon children’s constitutionally protected rights to freedom of expression and access to information.
“The moment you shut under-16s out of social media entirely, you’re limiting rights, and any such limit must comply with Section 36 of the Constitution, which sets a fairly strict test: is it actually going to work, and is there a less heavy-handed way to achieve the same goal?”
Farrell asked.
Australia’s experience shows that a complete ban does not prevent teenagers from circumventing restrictions. The stronger route lies in better design: safer defaults, curbs on addictive algorithms, and real obligations imposed on the platforms. Such an approach would be far more likely to survive a constitutional challenge than an outright ban on children.. According to Farrell, such an approach would be easier to justify in court.
Source: IOL
