Malaysia enforces ban on social media accounts for children younger than 16

infinite_spin

Out of curiosity, how difficult (from reasonably expensive to impossibly expensive) would it be to build a second internet for children, completely disconnected from what we'd call the adult internet? If we're going toward this highly curated model, which I'm not against, I'm wondering if this would be a reasonable solution to preventing the exploitation of minors on the internet.

kinmick

Great news, hope many more countries follow suit. Like banning the sale of nicotine products to under-16s, it won't be a perfect solution as a few will continue to work around the restriction, but it's a huge step in the right direction.

golph

I’m on the fence regarding bans like this. But from first hand, I grew up on social media and I can’t say it was really positive for me or the people around me that also grew up on/with social media. I’m wondering how this would change mental health in young people. Can anyone point me to specific studies on this?

arjie

Ah, it requires at least 8 million users[0] in Malaysia and they have a list. I was wondering how Hacker News etc. were going to comply. 0: https://soyacincau.com/2025/12/15/mcmc-social-media-instant-...

noobermin

This is likely because the government fears of protests. Just like the bans in the west were mostly about anti Israel/ pro Palestinian rhetoric, this is a response to the anti Government protests last year in Indonesia and elsewhere. They're afraid of it happening there.

lilOnion

So we're all going to accept mass survaliance for everybody who is >=16 in order to "protect" those who are under 16. Yet parents wont get any notices if their child bypasses the id check.

gherkinnn

I am against these age bans because I know the mechanisms behind it will be used against everybody. I am, however, all for banning personalised feeds, data collection, targeted ads, what amounts slot machines, and generally the poison these platforms spew. What this will look like in practice I don't know. I am neither a lawyer, politician, nor do I work on these systems.

shevy-java

> The rules require social media platforms to implement age-verification systems and block users under 16 from creating accounts. The to me interesting part is how these all allege to restrict under-age people, but EVERYONE will be forced to give out their year. Aka the world wide web is turned into a giant age-sniffing network. I don't buy for a second that this is due to the alleged "we must protect children". What is also weird is ... if you are 15 years old, you get restricted here; at age 16, you don't, and at age 18 you are often taken from mandatory draft (in some countries) to be used for training in the military. In modern warfare with drones, this means cannon fodder, while the superrich are exempt from everything (look at the orange man and ask him when he served). Something is fundamentally broken here.

karmasimida

Honestly? Yes Social media is more harmful than alcohol, and it could solicit so much negative reactions at formation age. This needs to be global.

nullbio

This concerted global effort is more about building the surveillance infrastructure for the web that will be required given AI's takeoff, and less-so about the well being of children.

try-working

At this point, if we all get banned from Instagram and Facebook we lose nothing. I find Twitter very useful still for software stuff.

nsoonhui

As a Malaysian and a parent, and as someone who detests censorship and who is wholely aware of the slippery slope nature of censorship, I actually agree with the ban. This is because in Malaysia we already have seen enough examples of bad, vague laws have been used to shut up/down the ethnic minorities and dissenters, adding this ban will not change too much of the landscape. Banning younger children to have a social media account is good. If we can ban kids from driving because their brains aren't fully developed yet, why not just ban social media account for the same reason? It's actually sickening to see that everyone-- especially children-- glues to phone in public space: playground, restaurants and whatnot. Of course you can say that adults should follow the same ban but adults are more resistant to the opium of social media ( refer to the driving car example above). So I think the double standard is excusable. The detriment effects of social media towards the young, girls especially, are well documented ( see the Jonathan Hahdt book "the anxious generation"). So I think the ban is valid.

haritha-j

There is nothing social about social media as it exists today. The social component was meant to be socialising with friends and like-minded individuals. As it exists it is at best parasocial media. Realistically its simply a funnel for content from creators, and the ads that leech onto said content.

SilverElfin

Remember, Malaysia is an officially Islamic country, with Islamic laws. This type of law and verification of age / identity will be used to suppress speech and civil liberties. Not to mention the government’s fear of protests that have also rocked their Islamic neighbor, Indonesia. Keeping children off the internet requires everyone - including adults - be verified and identified online. This is a bad solution to mental health problems. Parents need to control and care for their kids, not take away everyone’s rights because they’re bad parents.

clydethefrog

There was another research in Austria into phone-free living among 46,000 young people shows that three weeks without a smartphone leads to better sleep and less depression. The participants reported increased psychological well-being and a decrease in problematic internet use, even after they started using the phones again. Many young people found new activities such as reading or playing outside to fill the time. https://science.orf.at/stories/3235664

commanderj

Why is this removed from the front page. 2 hours after posting, 117 up votes and more than 10 healthy comment threads?

egorfine

I've got four children ranging from 11 to 33. All of them digital native, all of them had no restrictions whatsoever on gadgets and online at all. All grew up to become good and successful people. I will do everything in my power to keep my youngest connected to all the social networks he wants and I will not take those legal requirements into consideration.

gaiagraphia

It's a privilege for these tech companies to operate in these nations, not a right. If they can't demonstrate positive value, then countries are absolutely right to cut out a cancer. I'm hugely in favour of more regulation with more revenue/users. If my income tax scales, so should the penalties associated their wealth extraction models. Ideally these big tech firms should be eliminating all the negative externalities associated with their use, either through funding systems, or a direct tax on revenue. The privacy side is worrying, but does Meta, Google, etc products are the antithesis of privacy anyway. Anything which burns their model and ideologies to the ground is a welcome change. As long as these draconian regulations only impact the hugest companies who don't demonstrate positive value, I think it's ok. If they start coming for smaller sites, message boards, etc, then it's a problem.

subarctic

Like I've said before i don't necessarily think it's bad that they're raising the minimum age for these sites, but since when does that mean they have to check ids? There's been a minimum age of 13 for decades and that never meant you had to upload your id

jason1cho

Creating accounts should be allowed, but using an account could require age check. People should be able to create an account at birth. Then when they grow up, they are ready to use the account. This way proves that the account owner is at least as old as the account.