Di global push wey dey try regulate how pikin dem dey use social media don dey shift responsibility comot from only parental control go the platforms wey dem design to make money from pikin attention.

For many kontri across di world, as governments dey take steps to regulate children dem social media use, di discussion about digital harm don dey change for ground level.

From Australia to di United Kingdom and from Norway to Türkiye, di regulations wey different country dey build dey meet for one common point: di harms wey children dey get from social media no fit only dey prevented by parental supervision.

Responsibility suppose dey shared with di digital platforms wey design, manage, and dey benefit from online environment dem.

Dis shift no mean say parents or public authorities don free. Family and state still remain main actors for child protection.

But governments don start to talk clear and steady say responsibility suppose extend reach reach platforms wey dey design, optimise, and commercialise digital places.

Like other users, pikin dem no dey just "use" social media: dem dey constantly steer, encourage, and keep for top platforms by infrastructure wey dem optimise make dem gain profit.

Infinite scrolling, algorithmic recommendation systems, and reward loops na deliberate design dem put so that attention economy go continue dey chop people time.

For dis kain condition, to expect sey parents alone go be the only counterforce to fight against trillion-dollar attention economy machines no realistic and e no fair.

Plenty multidisciplinary research wey dem don do about children and adolescents show say too much social media use get strong connection with anxiety disorders, depression, sleep wahala, attention problems, body dysmorphia wey filtered pictures fit cause, and eating disorders.

Di concept wey Shoshana Zuboff call “surveillance capitalism” dey give clear framework to understand why responsibility dey shift go higher level.

Social media platforms dey gather and analyse user behaviour steadily, dem dey predict wetin person go do next, and dem dey monetise these insights with targeted adverts and ways to shape behaviour.

For inside dis system, pikin dem no just be vulnerable users; dem dey turn to valuable data subjects.

Every swipe, pause, like, and emotional reaction dey produce behaviour surplus.

For pikin dem wey their mind and emotions still dey grow, dis kind extraction of data fit get deeper and longer-term consequence.

Algorithms no only dey learn wetin pikin dem like; dem dey also shape wetin dem go start to want.

Because of this, regulations now dey aim to limit data collection from children, to ban targeted advertising, to demand transparency for recommendation systems, and to punish platform designs wey only aim to maximizengagement.

Yanis Varoufakis idea wey dem call “technofeudalism” dey give another way to understand this power imbalance.

Digital platforms don start to resemble feudal estates more than normal capitalist companies.

Users no own these digital spaces; dem just get conditional access under rules wey platform owners set alone.

Pikin dem dey grow up for inside these privately governed ecosystems. Their social life, free time, and even some educational experience dey shaped inside systems wey opaque and governed by algorithms, no by democratic oversight.

For this kind situation, parental authority no get strong ground to battle continuous, invisible, and scalable algorithmic authority.

From this view, to blame parents na like to blame serfs wey dey for ground for how feudal land take belong to landlord.

States wey don see dis power imbalance dey shift their focus from the "subjects" go the "lords".

Australia ban wey say no social media for under-16s, wey start on 10 December 2025, na one of di most visible example of dis change.

With small exceptions like YouTube Kids, platforms must put strict age-verification systems; if dem no do am, dem fit pay fine reach $32 million.

Ex-Meta executive Stephen Scheeler talk say company fit make that kind money in less than two hours, and that talk don make people dey ask whether fines like that go really deter dem.

For United Kingdom, Online Safety Act give media regulator Ofcom power to fine companies up to 10 percent of their global turnover.

Prime Minister Keir Starmer, and many political actors, don talk openly say too much screen time dey threaten pikin well-being.

European Parliament decisions wey set minimum age of 16 for social media use and 13 for artificial intelligence tools and video platforms too show dis trend.

France still dey discuss full ban for under-15s and one kind "digital curfew", Spain dey prepare rules wey go need parental consent for users under 16, and Norway don see say current restrictions no dey work well and dem dey plan better oversight.

For United States, data privacy age threshold of 13 still dey, but stricter state laws dey face legal challenge say dem fit conflict with free speech.

China get one of di strictest digital controls for children: children under 14 get daily screen time limit of 40 minutes, and full digital access block between 10:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. local time.

Even though TikTok get more than half a billion users globally, for China e dey operate as separate version called Douyin, wey get different algorithms and dey put more emphasis on educational content.

French President Emmanuel Macron don openly say China fit use TikTok to weaken children's attention span around di world, but for their own children dem dey guide dem with Douyin wey get more discipline and educational content.

Dis difference show say social media platforms no just be commercial companies; dem fit act like instruments of cultural soft power.

Di fact sey Western social media platforms banned for China still show sey states dey begin see digital platforms no as free-market actors but as strategic infrastructure.

Even though Big Tech companies don put some measures, dem still generally oppose strict restrictions.

After Australia ban start, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese talk say more than 4.7 million social media accounts belonging to users under 16 don get deactivated, deleted, or restricted.

Big Tech people dey argue say age-verification technology fit threaten privacy, fit violate children's rights, and fit even reduce online safety.

But many times these objections dey hide bigger worry: dem fit lose a very profitable user base wey dey generate free data and content.

Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg, Instagram head Adam Mosseri, and Snapchat CEO Evan Spiegel go face trial in lawsuits wey claim say dem design addictive products even when dem sabi say dem dey harm young users.

At di same time, voluntary commitments about ethics and safety dey look more like "ethics washing": dem dey spread responsibility without changing the business models underneath.

For Türkiye, discussions about children for digital environment reflect local concerns but dem still align with global regulatory trends.

One draft report titled “Threats and Risks Awaiting Our Children in Digital Environments” wey di Child Rights Subcommittee of di Turkish Grand National Assembly’s Human Rights Inquiry Commission prepare outline dis approach.

Di report get proposals like night-time access restrictions for under 18, social media ban for under-15s, limit digital devices for school, strengthen counselling services, and special SIM card applications for children.

Minister of Family and Social Services Mahinur Ozdemir Goktas don announce say legislative preparations for social media regulation covering children under 15 go soon enter Parliament.

Di reason behind di regulation include rising levels of depression, anxiety, behavioural disorders, and risk of contact with criminal networks through digital platforms.

Minister Goktas talk say children no suppose be commercial resources or data pools for social media platforms. Instead of being attack on freedom of expression, these measures dem present as strategic public policy to protect children from di structural risks of di digital ecosystem.

For dis framework, di "Cocuklar Guvende" (Children are Safe) digital platform dey give guidance and notification mechanisms for children and parents.

Authorities especially dey emphasis say fight against harmful content suppose proactive and platforms suppose do am themselves, no only rely on reactive interventions.

Children no be only group wey dey exposed to digital harm. Adults wey no get digital literacy well, and especially old people, dem dey also become more vulnerable to disinformation, emotional polarisation, and behavioural manipulative practices wey algorithms dey push.

So platform regulation no be only for teach pikin how to dey safe; na also fight to strengthen di digital public sphere against disinformation, to free democratic processes from algorithmic capture, and to preserve social cohesion.

If platforms dey design digital environments, train algorithms, and systematically benefit from di attention economy, responsibility no fit rest on individuals, families, or user preference alone.

Responsibility suppose dey shared, and power suppose dey under public oversight.