Picture: NWU’s Centre for Health and Human Performance, Linique Hanekom/Supplied
By OBAKENG MAJE
10 September 2026 – As more countries restrict social media access for children, should South Africa follow suit or find a solution better suited to its own realities? Social media may expose children to cyberbullying and harmful content, but its developmental cost could also lie in the conversations, play and sleep it displaces.
Linique Hanekom who works at the North West University’s Centre for Health and Human Performance said the issue is not simply what a screen does to a child. Hanekom said it is what the screen may prevent the child from doing.
She further said keeping under-16s off social media will not be enough unless parents, schools, government and technology companies share responsibility for children’s online safety. Hanekom added that children need sleep, play, movement, friendships and responsive adults more than another feed to scroll.
“Technology must never become a substitute for childhood.
Australia has done it. Indonesia has followed and the United Kingdom intends to do so from 2027. As governments move to keep children below a prescribed age off social media, South Africa faces the same difficult question: should it shut the door too?
Hanekom whose work includes a special interest in neurodevelopmental disorders, early communication intervention, and language and specific learning disorders, believes the country should seriously consider an under-16 restriction. She said she is careful, however, about what it should be called—and what it could accomplish.
“I would prefer the language of an ‘age restriction’ rather than simply a punitive ‘ban’. I would not view a restriction as a complete solution. It should form part of a broader child-development and online-safety strategy involving parents, schools, government and technology companies.
“Australia became the first country to enforce a national minimum age of 16. Since 10 December 2025, designated platforms have had to take reasonable steps to prevent under-16s from creating or retaining accounts. The burden rests on the companies, not children or their parents,” said Hanekom.
She said Indonesia subsequently began enforcing restrictions for users under 16, while the UK has announced that certain social media services will become unavailable to under-16s from spring 2027. Hanekom said South Africa should study these approaches, not copy them blindly.
“Local policy would have to account for unequal access to technology, digital literacy, education, data costs and the reality that many children also go online to learn, create, find community and seek support. Age checks introduce privacy questions, while determined adolescents may simply circumvent them.
“A restriction without education, platform accountability and accessible alternatives is unlikely to be sufficient. The developmental concern reaches far beyond offensive content. For younger children, real human interaction is developmental work,” she said.
Hanekom said language is not learnt merely by hearing words on a screen. She said it develops through joint attention, taking turns, reading faces and body language, asking questions and repairing misunderstandings.
“The issue is not simply what a screen does to a child; it is what the screen may prevent the child from doing. That distinction is supported by research. A 2024 systematic review and meta-analysis in JAMA Pediatrics found that greater programme viewing and background television exposure among children under six were associated with poorer cognitive outcomes.
“Age-inappropriate content and caregiver screen use during children’s routines were associated with poorer psychosocial outcomes. The study also found positive associations between co-use and cognitive outcomes, underscoring that context matters. For older children, social media arrives while identity, emotional regulation and self-concept are still developing,” said Hanekom.
The Guardian 