By Marcus Moloko
Smartphone Free Childhood South Africa (SFC-SA) has launched a campaign to delay or restrict smartphone and social media access for children under 16.
The group contends that early, unmoderated smartphone exposure can harm children and is calling for age-appropriate technology policies.
SFC-SA says its approach is pro-child, not anti-tech.
It supports delays and safeguards rather than blanket bans, and says it has mobilised thousands of parents through campaigns and school-based pledges.
Media coverage has amplified the call, pointing to international momentum, such as Australia’s under-16 social media restrictions and Malaysia’s announced plans, as examples South African policymakers may consider when debating local measures.
Several media reports say SFC-SA has launched a nationwide digital parent pact. The idea is to help parents with children in the same school grade commit collectively to withholding smartphones until high school.
Supporters say this could reduce peer pressure and create community backing for delayed adoption and clearer, coordinated boundaries around devices and social platforms.
An IOL report said that any policy change in South Africa would likely depend on constitutional and statutory tests. These would need to balance children’s rights, freedom of expression, and access to information against the state’s duty to protect minors from harm.
If the advocacy intensifies, groups could pursue court action in several forms:
- Applications compelling regulators or education authorities to issue age-based social media guidelines.
- Constitutional challenges seeking a declaration that unrestricted smartphone access undermines children’s rights to safety and well-being.
- Public interest litigation pushing platforms and mobile networks to implement age verification and default protections for under-16s.
These legal routes would likely rely on comparative evidence and child-protection frameworks, using overseas precedents as persuasive (not binding) authority.
For minors, the potential impacts are complex. Possible benefits of restricting smartphones under 16 could include reduced exposure to cyberbullying, adult content, and addictive design; improved sleep, attention, and mental health; and more time for in-person social development and learning.
SFC-SA said it is highlighting research-based harms and advocating for mindful, age-appropriate technology to safeguard childhood.
Possible downsides include reduced access to digital literacy, educational apps, and online communities; potential exclusion from school communications that rely on mobile platforms; and a greater burden on parents and schools to provide alternative channels and supervised access. A strict ban or delay could also widen inequalities if enforcement is uneven or if safer, supervised technology is not made accessible across different socioeconomic contexts.
In the near term, South Africa’s trajectory is likely to involve policy debate, school-level compacts, and advocacy aimed at both government and platforms rather than immediate national legislation.
If litigation is pursued, it could test how courts weigh child protection against access and expression, and might result in court-ordered guidelines or obligations on platforms to verify age and provide default safeguards for minors.
International developments will likely continue to shape the local conversation as advocates press for clearer rules and stronger protections for children online.
INSIDE EDUCATION
