The False Panacea, The Proposed Social Media Ban for Minors and the Systemic Vacuum of Child Protection

The False Panacea, The Proposed Social Media Ban for Minors and the Systemic Vacuum of Child Protection

In the face of a genuine and growing crisis—children’s unregulated, often perilous immersion in the digital world—the Goa government’s proposal to ban social media for those under 16 has arrived with the satisfying thud of a decisive, simple solution. It taps into the deep well of parental anxiety about cyberbullying, grooming, predatory content, and screen addiction. It offers the alluring promise of control: a clean, legislative line drawn to wall off the perceived digital wilderness from vulnerable young minds. Yet, as articulated powerfully by child rights expert Peter F. Borges, this proposal represents a profound and dangerous case of putting the rule before the system. It is a classic example of “policy theatre”—a dramatic, headline-grabbing gesture that masks, and may even exacerbate, the state’s chronic, systemic failure to build the robust, responsive, and humane child protection ecosystem that is the only true guarantor of safety, online or offline.

The Allure and Illusion of the Ban

Bans are politically seductive. They project an image of strong, protective governance. They offer weary parents and educators a clear villain (social media platforms) and a clear remedy (prohibition). The genuine concerns driving the proposal are undeniable. Stories of sextortion, life-altering cyberbullying, exposure to violent and pornographic content, and the erosion of attention spans and mental health are not hyperbolic fabrications; they are the daily realities of digital childhood. The proposal responds to a palpable sense of adult helplessness in the face of technologies that have evolved faster than societal norms and parenting skills.

However, as Borges compellingly argues, “reassurance is not protection.” True protection is not defined by what we forbid, but by “what stands ready when restriction fails — because it always does.” This is the crux of the issue. A ban, especially one as broad and difficult to enforce as this, does not address the root causes of vulnerability. It is a perimeter fence erected around a house with no foundation, no security inside, and no emergency services to call if the fence is inevitably scaled.

The Ghost Machinery: Goa’s Hollowed-Out Child Protection System

The proposal’s fatal flaw is exposed not in its intent, but in its context. Borges lays bare the shocking institutional vacuum in which this ban is being proposed—a vacuum that makes the gesture not just ineffective, but arguably reckless.

1. The Missing Guardian: A Defunct Child Rights Commission: Since May 2024, the Goa State Commission for Protection of Child Rights (GSCPCR), the statutory watchdog mandated to independently investigate violations and advocate for children, has been non-operational. For over a year, there has been no apex body to hear complaints, conduct inquiries, or monitor the implementation of child-centric laws. Proposing a sweeping new restriction while the primary agency for safeguarding those very children’s rights is defunct is a staggering contradiction.

2. The Crippled Backbone: Weak District Child Protection Units: The District Child Protection Units (DCPUs) are the frontline soldiers of the child protection framework under the Juvenile Justice Act. They are supposed to provide immediate care, coordinate rehabilitation, offer psychosocial support, and work with families. Borges notes that in Goa, these units were non-functional for over five years and remain “weak, uneven, and insufficient.” Without these functional units, who will handle the fallout when a banned child, using a secret account, becomes a victim of online grooming? Who will provide the counseling and legal support? The ban creates new categories of “violators” and potential victims without providing the system to support either.

3. The Overstretched First Responders: Special Juvenile Police Units: The Special Juvenile Police Units (SJPUs), trained to handle cases involving children with sensitivity, are described as “overstretched, inconsistently trained, and often absorbed into routine policing.” Expecting these under-resourced units to now police the digital behavior of hundreds of thousands of minors, discerning between harmless use and actual harm, is a fantasy. Enforcement would be arbitrary, sporadic, and likely punitive rather than protective.

This systemic hollowing-out did not happen overnight. It is the result of what Borges terms the slow erosion of child protection through “delays, vacancies, and the normalisation of ‘managing somehow.’” The proposed ban is not a complement to a strong system; it is a distraction from a broken one. It is an attempt to use a single, blunt legislative instrument to compensate for years of institutional neglect.

The Unintended Consequences: Driving Risk Underground

A fundamental miscalculation of such top-down bans is a misunderstanding of child and adolescent behavior. Adolescents are inherently curious, social, and technologically adept. They do not simply disengage because a law tells them to. Instead, they adapt in ways that can increase risk:

• Evasion and Deception: They will use Virtual Private Networks (VPNs), borrow devices, create fake accounts with false ages, or use lesser-known, less-regulated platforms that may be even more dangerous.

• The Underground Shift: Harmful interactions—grooming, bullying, sharing of explicit content—will be pushed into encrypted, harder-to-monitor spaces like private messaging apps or gaming chat rooms. The ban could sever the visible, reportable connection a parent or teacher might have to a child’s online life, making early intervention less likely.

• Stigmatization and Erosion of Trust: Framing social media use as an illegal act for minors turns a developmental and social reality into a crime. It criminalizes normal adolescent behavior, potentially making children less likely to seek help from adults for fear of getting in trouble for the mere act of being online.

The ban, therefore, risks making children less safe by forcing their digital lives into the shadows, away from any potential, however frail, of supportive oversight.

The Flawed International Comparison: Australia’s Ecosystem, Not Just Its Law

Proponents often point to countries like Australia, which is debating similar age restrictions. However, this comparison is highly selective. As Borges points out, Australia’s discussions are underpinned by years of investment in a comprehensive digital safety ecosystem. This includes:

• A well-resourced, independent eSafety Commissioner with powers to investigate and order the removal of harmful content.

• Nationwide digital literacy programs in schools for children and parents.

• Robust, accessible mental health services.

• Public awareness campaigns and research institutions dedicated to online safety.
  Australia’s potential regulation is the capstone of a built edifice, not a foundation poured on sand. To copy the proposed law while ignoring the decade of institution-building that preceded it is, as Borges sharply notes, “imitation,” not leadership.

The Path of True Protection: Building Capacity, Not Just Walls

The alternative to the simplistic ban is harder, less glamorous, but fundamentally more effective: building the systemic capacity for digital resilience and safety. This requires:

1. Revitalizing Core Institutions: Immediately reconstituting and empowering the GSCPCR with adequate funding and authority. Strengthening DCPUs and SJPUs with dedicated, trained staff and clear protocols for handling online harm, focusing on victim support, not just perpetrator punishment.

2. Universal Digital Literacy Education: Integrating mandatory, age-appropriate digital citizenship into school curricula from an early age. This should cover critical thinking, privacy management, understanding algorithms, recognizing predatory behavior, and safe social media practices. Parents must be included in this education.

3. Strengthening Parental and Community Support: Creating accessible resources and workshops to help parents navigate digital parenting—not with fear, but with understanding and tools for open communication and co-viewing/co-playing, rather than mere surveillance.

4. Creating Easy, Trusted Reporting and Support Pathways: Establishing clear, child-friendly mechanisms within schools and communities for reporting online harm, linked directly to the revitalized DCPUs and mental health services. Children must know where to go and trust that they will be helped, not blamed.

5. Holding Platforms Accountable: Advocating for and enforcing stronger national regulations that compel social media companies to implement robust age-verification (not just age-gating), design safer defaults for minors, quickly takedown harmful content, and share data transparently with child protection authorities.

Conclusion: From Symbolic Gesture to Sustained Commitment

Goa has a proud legacy in child protection, exemplified by its pioneering Children’s Act. That legacy is now being betrayed not by a lack of concern, but by a misdirection of energy. The proposed social media ban is a symptom of a governance model that prefers the visible, one-time action over the sustained, unglamorous work of institution-building.

True child protection in the digital age acknowledges that children are rights-holders, not just risks to be managed. It understands that their online worlds are integral to their learning, socializing, and identity. The goal cannot be to create a sterile, disconnected childhood, but to equip children with the skills, judgment, and support to navigate the connected world safely and meaningfully.

Before deciding what to ban, the state must first answer Borges’s poignant question: “what protections we have failed to sustain.” Filling the vacancies in the Commission, staffing the protection units, training the police, and educating the community—these are the unsexy, essential tasks that keep children safe. A ban without this system is not a shield; it is a veil, hiding our institutional failures while doing little to protect the child tapping on a screen in the dark. The choice is between the illusion of control and the hard work of care. The future of Goa’s children depends on choosing wisely.

Q&A on the Proposed Social Media Ban and Child Protection

Q1: What is the core argument against a blanket social media ban for those under 16?
A1: The core argument is that a blunt legislative ban is a substitute for systemic reform and is likely to be counterproductive. It focuses on restricting access rather than building the child protection ecosystem needed to handle online risks. Such bans are difficult to enforce, push children’s online activity into harder-to-monitor spaces, and do nothing to address the root causes of vulnerability or to educate children on digital safety. True protection comes from robust institutions, education, and support, not from prohibition alone.

Q2: According to the article, what are the specific systemic failures in Goa’s child protection apparatus?
A2: The article highlights a near-collapse of key pillars:

• Defunct Commission: The Goa State Commission for Protection of Child Rights (GSCPCR) has been non-operational since May 2024.

• Weak Frontline Units: District Child Protection Units (DCPUs), crucial for care and rehabilitation, have been historically non-functional and remain under-resourced.

• Overstretched Special Police: Special Juvenile Police Units (SJPUs) are overburdened and lack specialized training for digital harm.

• Chronic Neglect: This represents a long-term erosion of child protection systems through understaffing and underfunding, creating a vacuum the ban does not fill.

Q3: Why might a ban actually increase risks for children rather than reduce them?
A3: A ban can increase risk by:

• Driving Activity Underground: Tech-savvy teens will use VPNs, fake accounts, or alternative platforms to evade the ban, moving to less-regulated, potentially riskier digital spaces.

• Reducing Oversight: If social media use becomes a forbidden activity, children may be less likely to report harassment or abuse to parents/teachers for fear of punishment for being online in the first place.

• Stifling Support Networks: For many youth, online communities provide crucial social support, identity exploration, and access to help resources. A blanket cut-off can isolate them from these positive aspects without eliminating negative ones.

Q4: How does the comparison with Australia’s approach reveal the flaw in Goa’s proposal?
A4: While Australia debates age restrictions, it has spent years building a comprehensive digital safety ecosystem: a powerful eSafety Commissioner, national education programs, mental health support, and parental guidance frameworks. Their regulatory discussion rests on this foundation. Goa’s proposal seeks to replicate the restrictive headline without first building—or in this case, even maintaining—the essential institutional and educational infrastructure. This is “imitation” without the necessary groundwork.

Q5: What should be the alternative, systems-based approach to protecting children online?
A5: An effective, systems-based approach requires multi-pronged, sustained investment:

1. Fix the Institutions: Immediately revive and fund the GSCPCR, DCPUs, and SJPUs with trained personnel.

2. Mandate Digital Literacy: Implement compulsory, age-appropriate digital citizenship education in schools for students and parents, focusing on critical thinking, privacy, and recognizing harms.

3. Create Support Pathways: Establish easy, confidential reporting channels in schools linked to child protection services and mental health support.

4. Empower Parents: Provide community resources to help parents guide children’s digital use through communication and shared media experiences.

5. Regulate Platforms: Advocate for stronger laws holding social media companies accountable for child-safe design and rapid response to harms.
   This approach builds resilience and skills, preparing children for the digital world rather than pretending it can be simply walled off.