After the Government Restricts Social Media for Children, What Next?
Indonesia’s policy restricting social media accounts for children under 16 years old, which came into effect on 28 March 2026, targets two generations simultaneously: the tail end of Generation Z, born between 1997 and 2012, and the entire Generation Alpha, born since 2010. Both these generations have never known a world without the internet. They are digital natives. For them, the digital world is not an escape from the real world; it is part of the real world itself. It is where they interact, build their identities, express their creativity, and even form their understanding of themselves and their surroundings.
Suddenly disconnecting them from the digital world is like erasing half the world they inhabit. Generations of Baby Boomers, Generation X, and Millennials may not fully understand the weight of this, because for them the digital world could always be switched off, abandoned, and life could still continue. However, this is not the case for Generation Z and Alpha. There is no “off” button that separates the digital world from their lives. The two have become one.
The government’s good intentions to protect them from the damaging effects of social media are commendable. However, good intentions alone are insufficient without a well-developed plan for the conditions that should exist after the prohibition is implemented. This ban stems from the Ministry of Communications and Digital Information Regulation Number 9 of 2026, derived from the TUNAS Government Regulation. Its foundation is strong: a decade of global research has consistently shown links between uncontrolled social media exposure in children and mental health disorders, declining sleep quality, and vulnerability to harmful content. That Indonesia is only acting now is indeed worth noting.
Australia passed similar regulations in late 2024, and France had already proposed restrictions since 2023. Meanwhile, millions of Indonesian children were for years left to face algorithms not designed to protect them. One generation has already grown up without protection. However, being late is not a reason not to take action. The question is not whether this policy is necessary. The question is: after the ban, what comes next?
This is the question the government has not answered clearly. First, which platforms are safe and recommended by the state for children under 16 years old? If Instagram, TikTok, and similar platforms are blocked, does the state offer an alternative ecosystem that is more credible, or does it simply close the door and leave children in darkness without a map?
Second, is there genuine investment in digital literacy? Not campaigns, not billboards, but structured, measurable, integrated programmes with broad reach. Third, who is responsible for supporting children during this transition: schools, parents, or the state? Fourth, what becomes of children in remote areas (3T regions) who rely on YouTube and social media as their only window to learn, access information, and feel connected to the wider world?
A ban without an alternative ecosystem is a half-measures policy. For a generation that has grown up with social media, digital platforms are not merely entertainment; they are social infrastructure. Study groups exist there. Communities of interest exist there. Relationships between pupils and teachers, between teenagers and distant peers, all flow through the same channels that are now to be restricted. Closing access without preparing a substitute does not protect children; it creates a void. And voids are filled by something, not always something better.
The government is proud of this step as the first among non-Western nations. French President Emmanuel Macron has even given his support. However, this is precisely where caution is needed. France and Australia, the two countries cited as inspiration, are still grappling with the same technical questions to this day: how does age verification really work without violating privacy? How can a wave of fake account creation using parents’ identities be prevented? Could this ban actually drive children to darker platforms that are beyond regulatory reach? Being a pioneer is honourable. However, being honourable does not automatically mean being successful. Indonesia needs to learn from the pitfalls already encountered by other nations, not merely borrow their boldness.
In legal terms, one thing that must be emphasised is that good regulation is not merely a matter of substance but also a matter of accountability in implementation. The question of age verification mechanisms is a very serious technical-legal question: how will data integration between the civil registration office and foreign platforms work?
It should be noted that most of the social media platforms used by Indonesians are controlled by global technology companies such as Meta Platforms and Google, based in the United States, and also ByteDance from China. Issues of personal data protection and cross-border data transfer will become increasingly critical and pressing.
Moreover, without reliable safeguarding mechanisms, children could easily borrow their parents’ national identification numbers. What follows is predictable: this well-intentioned policy becomes mere paperwork. Regulation that cannot be implemented is not good regulation; it merely lengthens the list of norms violated without consequence.
This policy is correct in its direction. And precisely because it is correct, it deserves higher demands: do not stop at prohibition. The state needs to provide operational technical guidance for platforms, schools, and parents. The state needs to invest in a safe and affordable digital ecosystem for all children, not only those in major cities whose parents are technologically literate. The state needs to commit to evaluating the implementation regularly and transparently, adjusting its approach based on evidence of what works and what creates new problems.