As Nigeria launches consultations on age restrictions, a growing global consensus shows that protecting children online is an essential part of governance.
On March 10, 2026, Nigeria began a formal public consultation on whether to introduce age restrictions for social media use, becoming the latest African country to seriously confront the issue of how young people should interact with online platforms. The move reflects growing concern among policymakers about the influence of services such as Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, and X (Twitter) on children and teenagers, and whether stronger safeguards are needed to protect them online.
The consultation signals a fundamental shift in how governments are beginning to treat the digital environment not as a neutral utility, but as a space in which the state has a duty to protect its most vulnerable citizens.
Nigeria has more than 40 million people spending an average of six hours daily on social media platforms and a significant portion of those users are minors — children and teenagers navigating platforms built around engagement metrics, algorithmic amplification, and targeted advertising, with few safeguards calibrated to their age.
The risks to this vulnerable population include cyberbullying, exposure to harmful and sexually explicit content, online grooming, the misuse of personal data, and the psychological toll of addictive platform design.
A global outlook
In December 2025, Australia enacted its social media laws, imposing a blanket ban on social media access for children under the age of 16. Platforms including TikTok, Instagram, and YouTube are now legally required to enforce that restriction. Importantly, the law places the burden of compliance on the platforms themselves (not on parents or children) and reflects a recognition that voluntary industry self-regulation has failed.
Countries face the challenge of enforcing digital regulations in contexts where circumvention through VPNs or secondary devices is possible. But the existence of imperfect enforcement has never been sufficient reason to abandon necessary policy.
In California where most of the world’s social media platforms are domiciled, the Governor signed Senate Bill 976, formally known as the Protecting Our Kids from Social Media Addiction Act. Rather than prohibiting minors from accessing platforms outright, the California law takes aim at the mechanism of harm itself, the algorithmic “addictive feed.”
Under the law, social media platforms are prohibited from serving algorithmically curated, personalised content feeds to users under 18 unless a parent has provided verifiable consent. The law also restricts platforms from sending notifications to minors in the hours between midnight and 6 a.m., and between 8 a.m. and 3 p.m. during the school year, targeting the two windows most likely to disrupt sleep and learning. In October 2025, California extended the legislative package further, requiring chatbots to disclose their AI nature to minors and to prompt breaks every three hours, mandating app stores to implement age verification tools, and requiring health warning labels on social media platforms for users under 18.
The California model is instructive because it attacks the business logic of harm, not merely its symptom as addictive feeds are not merely an accident of social media design, but the product. They are how platforms maximise time-on-app and, therefore, advertising revenue. A law that requires parental consent before deploying this mechanism on a child is, in effect, telling platforms that children are not a legitimate target market for psychological manipulation.
Though some of the law’s provisions have been challenged, the courts have upheld the core provision which is the restriction on addictive feeds, affirming that the state has a legitimate interest in protecting minors from algorithmically engineered compulsion.
In other climes, France enacted legislation in January 2026 banning social media for children under 15, framing it explicitly as a public health measure. Indonesia announced in March 2026 that it would deactivate social media accounts belonging to children under 16 on high-risk platforms beginning March 28. Malaysia is pursuing full implementation of equivalent measures before the end of 2026. More than 40 countries are currently studying or implementing age restrictions.
The case for NigeriaÂ
The benefits of age restriction legislation, properly designed, are substantial. First, they reduce children’s exposure to harmful content. Research consistently demonstrates correlations between heavy adolescent social media use and elevated rates of anxiety, depression and sleep deprivation. Regulatory intervention that limits or mediates that exposure would represent a meaningful public health intervention in a country where mental health infrastructure is already strained.
Second, age restrictions shift accountability where it belongs, onto the platforms. For long the implicit assumption of digital governance has been that parents are the last and only line of defence against the harms of social media. Platforms with billions of dollars in revenue and teams of behavioural engineers designing for maximal engagement cannot plausibly claim that age verification is technically beyond their capability. Regulation will provide legal compulsion.
Third, the evidence-based consultation approach Nigeria is taking, inviting input from parents, educators, young people, and digital experts before drafting policy, is important. Sub-Saharan Africa has the world’s youngest population, and its digital adoption curve is steep. The regulatory architecture that Nigeria puts in place today may become a reference point for other African governments navigating the same challenges.
The objections, and why they do not hold
Opponents of social media age restrictions tend to raise three objections. The first is that the laws are unenforceable. What regulation achieves is a shift in norms, a redistribution of legal liability, and a financial incentive for platforms to invest in compliance infrastructure that they would otherwise ignore. The second objection is that restrictions infringe on children’s freedom of expression and access to information. However, children will retain full access to the internet, to educational content, to communication tools, but would be protected from the addictive algorithm architecture of social media feeds. The third objection is that savvy teenagers will simply use VPNs to circumvent the law. This may happen, but the purpose of child protection legislation is not to prevent every violation, but to establish the standard that society endorses and to hold corporations legally accountable when they knowingly fail to protect minors.
Governance as a form of care
The question goes beyond whether social media harms children. The real point is that children are not a product. They are not an audience to be monetised. They are citizens in formation who deserve protection, and any platform operating should be able to demonstrate that commitment.
- business a.m. commits to publishing a diversity of views, opinions and comments. It, therefore, welcomes your reaction to this and any of our articles via email: comment@businessamlive.comÂ
Nigeria’s move to protect children from social media use