Proponents of the proposed social media ban for children under 15 argue that the measure is a necessary intervention to safeguard the mental well-being of a generation. Advocates point to rising rates of anxiety, depression, and body image issues among adolescents, which they link to the pervasive influence of social media platforms. By setting a clear legal boundary, the state provides parents with a stronger tool to manage their children's digital exposure.
Supporters emphasize that social media companies have prioritized engagement and profit over the developmental needs of young users. They contend that algorithms are designed to keep children scrolling, often exposing them to inappropriate content or predatory behavior. Requiring age verification is seen as a logical step to force these corporations to take responsibility for the environments they create.
Furthermore, this policy is viewed as a way to reclaim the digital space for educational and healthy social development. By delaying access to these platforms, children may be encouraged to engage in more offline activities and face-to-face interactions. Supporters believe that the state has a fundamental duty to protect minors from commercial interests that exploit their psychological vulnerabilities.
Ultimately, the move is framed as a public health priority rather than a restriction on freedom. Just as there are age limits for other products that can be harmful to minors, advocates argue that social media should be treated with similar caution. The focus remains on creating a safer digital ecosystem where children can grow without the constant pressure of algorithmic influence.