From 28 March 2026, Indonesia enters a new chapter in protecting\nchildren in digital spaces. Social media accounts for children under 16\nyears on high-risk platforms will be progressively deactivated under\nministerial regulation No.\u00a09\/2026, implementing Government Regulation\nNo.\u00a017\/2025.<\/p>\n
This step stems from recognition that exposure to harmful content,\ncyberbullying, online fraud, and digital addiction cannot be entirely\nplaced on families. After nearly three decades of social media\npermeating society, the government finally acknowledges the dangers to\nchildren. Yet another, more advanced technology is rapidly infiltrating\nclassrooms and study desks: Generative AI (GenAI). There is urgency in\naddressing GenAI: should the government regulate this technology that\nequally threatens Indonesia\u2019s future generation?<\/p>\n
SWIFT STATE ACTION<\/p>\n
The world demonstrates how quickly governments can move to prevent\ntechnologies with demonstrable negative impacts. Australia, for\ninstance, imposed social media restrictions for users under 16 on 10\nDecember 2025, requiring platforms to ensure children cannot create or\nmaintain accounts. Indonesia now follows similar policy directions with\nits own context and mechanisms. If social media is discussed as\ntechnology threatening society, particularly young people in formal\neducation from primary to secondary school, should not GenAI likewise be\ndiscussed as a new, disruptive, dangerous technology?<\/p>\n
PERSONAL TUTOR AND POISON FOR THE MIND<\/p>\n
GenAI undeniably helps students develop ideas, understand difficult\nconcepts, and provide rapid feedback\u2014even transforming into a personal\ntutor. GenAI\u2019s strength mirrors human cognitive work: constructing\narguments, gathering evidence, checking logic, and drawing conclusions.\nThis very strength is what causes concern.<\/p>\n
Education is not merely seeking answers and transferring them to\nworksheets; it is a process of developing critical reasoning habits.\nGenAI dependence creates not only lazy thinkers but epistemic\ndependence. Students no longer brainstorm independently, no longer\nindependently verify data, and lose the habit of drawing conclusions\nthrough reasoning, instead accepting GenAI output as final answers.<\/p>\n
A systematic review of ChatGPT by Melisa et al.\u00a0(2025) focusing on\nhigher education contexts showed that excessive ChatGPT use can hinder\nmotivation for self-reflection and critical evaluation of\ninformation\u2014both core components of critical thinking. This aligns with\nanother systematic review highlighting risks of over-reliance on AI\ndialogue systems: when users tend to accept AI output without testing\nit, analytical reasoning and decision-making abilities erode (Zhai et\nal., 2024).<\/p>\n
Meanwhile, Hassen (2025) warns of cognitive offloading dangers, where\nthinking burden shifts to machines. The machine thinks whilst the human\nremains passive. This should concern education because GenAI use in\nclassrooms contradicts educational principles valuing critical reasoning\nand intellectual independence.<\/p>\n
We certainly do not want education outputs producing increasingly\nsophisticated GenAI through massive use whilst students become passive\nthrough infrequent thinking. We want students to think, with GenAI\nhelping them think\u2014not the reverse. How should government address\nGenAI?<\/p>\n
TOTAL BANS ARE NOT THE ANSWER<\/p>\n
Considering GenAI also offers benefits, total prohibition is extreme.\nBanning AI in education risks destroying pedagogical opportunities\noffering learning efficiencies. Banning GenAI widens digital divides,\nwhere as many harness AI for life advancement, students risk\ntechnological lag causing alienation from an AI-saturated society.\nTherefore, government consideration should focus on permissible AI\ninvolvement degrees.<\/p>\n
FOUR SCHOOL POLICIES<\/p>\n
First, national regulation on GenAI use in schools is needed,\nestablishing AI as a learning partner, not a thinking replacement. Given\nGenAI benefits, regulation is necessary as it threatens critical\nreasoning. For instance, GenAI might serve brainstorming partners, with\nstudents then required to develop reflective reasoning on topics or\nindependently analyse data.<\/p>\n
Second, schools need transparency disclaimers when learning involves\nAI\u2014for example, students disclosing prompts or GenAI-sourced arguments\nin assignments. Transparency enables teachers to monitor student\nlearning.<\/p>\n
Third, regulations delaying GenAI access to certain education levels\nare needed. For primary school, government might consider strict\nrestrictions, not because children shouldn\u2019t use technology, but because\nthis phase builds fundamental reading, writing, and reasoning habits.\nThis should occur traditionally through teacher guidance and repetitive\npractice.<\/p>\n
Fourth, government should promote assessment designs more resistant\nto GenAI substitution\u2014shifting evaluation from written assignments to\noral presentations, class debates, or contextual tasks requiring local\nexperience. These formats make learning participatory and resist machine\nreplacement.<\/p>\n
PROACTIVE, NOT REACTIVE STANCE<\/p>\n
Governments should adopt proactive rather than reactive positions\ntowards technology affecting education quality and national intellectual\ncapacity.<\/p>", "url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/if-social-media-is-restricted-why-not-generative-ai-1773312838", "image": "" }, "sponsor": "Okusi Associates", "sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com" }