Why children should be kept off social media

The digital wild west is destroying childhood
Rudeness, advertising, and pedophilia. That is the short list of reasons why children should not be on social media. The longer list barely fits into one column.
The wisest people on Earth, I have concluded, live where kangaroos, koalas, and wombats roam. Australia has banned children under 16 from registering on social media. Platforms are now required to delete children’s accounts, even those pretending to be adults, and to pay fines for harm caused to minors. From January, Malaysia will introduce a similar ban. The European Parliament is openly discussing following Australia’s example.
Well done.
The ideal parental world is one where children do not have access to social media. Or Roblox, for that matter. I would gladly cooperate with Australia. Bear and kangaroo, side by side.
This idea is not exotic or radical. France already requires parental consent for children under 15 to join social networks. Belgium bans social media for children under 13. Norway and Germany have introduced various forms of parental control. The trend is obvious. Within a year or two, children may largely disappear from social media. I am convinced that some countries will go further and restrict children’s access to the internet altogether.
Russia, however, is unlikely to follow this path. Our internet regulation remains extremely liberal. The infamous Yarovaya laws, channel registration, and server localization all arrived later than in the West. And there is another reason: money. We are a country of overdeveloped capitalism. Children represent billions in revenue. Who here would willingly shut off such a golden stream? The Australian scenario will not work in Russia.
Still, any parent who actually raises their child, rather than handing them a smartphone at six months and forgetting about them, understands why children should be kept off social media and why internet use must be strictly limited.
The problem has two sides.
The first is wasted time. A child glued to a phone is not developing. It does not matter whether they are gaming, chatting, or watching brainless bloggers who resemble them in every way. The result is the same: time is squandered. Years meant for learning and growth are spent on Roblox, TikTok, and endless chatter with strangers. We already see the consequences of growing up with phones. There is no need to list them again.
Parents who spend all day scrolling while ‘raising’ children should be ashamed.
Yet instead of admitting this, many boast: I’m teaching my child technology early! Or: They used to chat in the yard, now they chat online. What’s the difference? They accuse critics of being stuck in the past, while proudly presenting their laziness as progress.
There is a quote attributed to Steve Jobs. He allegedly said his children were not allowed to use computers, because it takes two weeks to become an advanced user, but a childhood spent staring at screens costs something far more valuable: time for real development.
Read more The second argument, that online communication simply replaces yard games, is false. We did not sit in courtyards for ten hours straight. We did not chat endlessly. Even the worst hooligans knew how to occupy themselves. Today’s children spend hours every day messaging about nothing. These are often children who do not read, do not study well, and narrow each other’s intellectual horizons. It would be better to go to the swings or comb a cat than to spend evenings in digital chatter with the equally ignorant.
Unlimited communication is disastrous. Children degrade not because they fail to go outside, but because they now spend all their time among underdeveloped, tongue-tied interlocutors. I am speaking, of course, about children addicted to the internet.
The dangers are not theoretical.
Yes, there are paedophiles and scammers. Anyone who still doubts this is naïve. I hear such stories constantly. R