Under-17 is too young for social media

THE debate over children and social media is often framed as a question of parental control or technological inevitability.

- ARMSTRONG WILLIAMS.

It should not be. At its core, this is a moral question about what kind of society we are shaping, what we choose to protect, and what we are willing to sacrifice in the name of convenience, profit, and false notions of freedom.Children under the age of 17 should not be on social media. Not because technology is evil, but because childhood is fragile and social media is not built for moral development.

At this stage of life, children are still forming their identity, learning boundaries, and developing the capacity for judgement and self-regulation. Neuroscience is clear: impulse control, emotional regulation, and critical thinking mature well into adolescence. Social media, by contrast, is designed to exploit impulse, reward comparison, and intensify emotion. It does not educate young minds; it conditions them.

What children encounter online is rarely neutral. Content is optimised not for truth, growth, or well-being, but for engagement. Shock travels faster than nuance. Sexualised imagery appears long before children can contextualise it. Violence is stripped of consequence.

Cruelty is reframed as humour. Validation becomes currency, and self-worth becomes a public negotiation.

This is not harmless exposure. It is moral interference at scale.