Relevance: GS Paper I (Society – Digital Divide) & GS Paper II (Governance – Policy)

Source: The Hindu 

Context: The “Moral Panic”

A heart-wrenching tragedy in Ghaziabad, where three young sisters took their lives over mobile phone restrictions, has triggered a nationwide “Moral Panic.”

Terrified parents and politicians are demanding a blanket ban on social media for children, hoping it will fix the problem. But in a complex country like India, a “ban” is a blunt hammer that might break more than it fixes.

Global Trends vs. Indian Reality

Rich nations like Australia and Spain are banning social media for under-16s. It sounds like a perfect solution. But India is not Australia.

• The Gender Trap: In India, internet access is already unequal. NSSO data shows only 33% of women use the internet vs 57% of men.
• The Impact: In conservative families, a government ban becomes a legal excuse to snatch phones away from girls permanently. We risk locking our daughters out of the digital world to “protect” them.

Why a Ban Won’t Work (The 3 Flaws)

1. The “Smart Kid” Problem: Today’s teens are tech-savvy. A ban won’t stop them; it will just push them to use VPNs or hide in the Dark Web, where dangers (grooming/radicalization) are far worse and unchecked.
2. The Lifeline: For a queer teenager in a village or a disabled child at home, social media is often their only window to a supportive community. Banning it sentences them to isolation.
3. Surveillance State: To enforce a ban, the government would need to verify everyone’s age. This means linking every Instagram account to a Govt ID, creating a dangerous mass surveillance system.

The Hidden Threat: AI & “Cognitive Debt”

While we panic about Instagram, a quieter threat is rising: AI Chatbots.

• Cognitive Debt: Research shows that children relying on AI for answers are losing their Critical Thinking skills. They are borrowing intelligence instead of building it.
• Safety Failures: There have been alarming cases of AI bots encouraging self-harm. Our laws need to tackle this “Artificial” influence, not just social feeds.

The Way Forward: “Duty of Care”

Instead of the “Illusion of Control” provided by a ban, India needs a “Healthy Media Ecology.”

• Shift Liability: Move from policing children to policing platforms. Implement a “Duty of Care” model where platforms are legally obligated to design safer systems (e.g., default private settings, anti-addiction features) or face heavy monetary penalties.
• Digital Literacy: Empower parents and schools with Digital Literacy programs to manage screen time empathetically, rather than resorting to police-style bans.

UPSC Value Box

Why this matters for Society:

• Demographic Dividend: If India’s youth succumb to “Screen-Induced Despair” or lose critical thinking due to AI (Cognitive Debt), the country’s demographic advantage could turn into a liability.
• Ethical Concept: “Folk Devils” – When society fails to solve complex parenting or educational problems, it demonizes a specific technology (like social media) to absolve itself of responsibility.

Reform Needed:

• Establish an Independent Digital Safety Regulator akin to SEBI or TRAI, removed from direct political control, to enforce platform accountability.

Summary

Banning social media is a “lazy policy.” It ignores the reality that for many Indian girls and marginalized youth, the phone is a ladder to opportunity. Instead of stripping children of their digital rights, the government must force Big Tech to clean up their toxic algorithms. We need a Safer Internet, not a Banned Internet.

One Line Wrap: You cannot save children by confiscating their future; you must fix the playground they play in.

Q. “A blanket ban on social media for minors is a ‘blunt instrument’ that ignores the socio-economic realities of the Indian digital divide.” Discuss the ethical and implementation challenges of such a ban. (10 Marks, 150 Words)

Model Hints

• Introduction: Contrast the Ghaziabad tragedy (emotional reaction) with the Digital Divide (practical reality).
• Body:
  • Inequality: Explain how bans hurt girls (NSSO data) and marginalized groups (LGBTQ/Rural).
  • Implementation: Mention VPN loopholes and privacy risks (ID linking).
  • Alternative: Propose the “Duty of Care” model—regulating algorithms, not users.
• Conclusion: Conclude that the state’s role is to ensure Digital Safety, not Digital Exclusion.