A proposed ban on social media use for children under 16 in the United Kingdom has received strong support from parents, but young people who would be directly affected by the policy have expressed a range of views, from backing tighter controls to opposing a complete restriction.

A group of 10 children aged between 12 and 16 discussed the issue this week, reflecting differing opinions on how authorities should address concerns around online safety, addictive features and harmful content. Their views came as the government considered measures aimed at improving children’s online protection, including possible age limits for high-risk platforms and restrictions on certain features.

The debate has focused not only on whether younger users should be prevented from accessing major social media platforms but also on whether companies should be required to change how their services operate. Possible measures under consideration include limiting autoplay videos, reducing infinite scrolling features, introducing stronger parental controls and restricting personalised algorithms.

Precisa, a 13-year-old who uses TikTok and Instagram, said social media was important for her small roll-on deodorant business because she relies on the platforms for promotion. She also uses Snapchat mainly for messaging and communication.A complete ban, she said, would create difficulties for young people who use social media for constructive purposes, including entrepreneurship and community activities.

She argued that stronger monitoring of harmful content and limits on usage would be more effective than removing access entirely.Precisa, who is also deputy youth mayor of the London borough of Hammersmith and Fulham, said social media platforms help promote youth council activities and allow young people to engage with wider audiences.

Other teenagers expressed similar concerns about a blanket ban. Zoe, 14, said she mainly uses Snapchat and has limited access to other platforms because of restrictions set by her parents. She said she did not support a ban, arguing that parental controls could provide protection while allowing young people to develop digital skills.

However, Zoe raised concerns about personalised algorithms, saying she was uncomfortable with platforms delivering content specifically selected for individual users. The government consultation has examined possible restrictions on such systems because of concerns about their impact on young users.

YouTube emerged as a major part of the discussion among younger participants. Several 12-year-olds said they regularly use the platform to watch music, sports and educational content. While YouTube has an age limit of 13, younger children can access it through supervised accounts designed to provide age-appropriate viewing.

Some participants said they would miss the platform if access were restricted. Sophia, 12, said she uses YouTube for music and art videos and would lose access to content she enjoys. Milei, also 12, said a ban would be difficult to accept and called for a less extreme approach.Accurisa, 12, said she enjoyed watching football-related creators and supported restrictions on unsafe material rather than removing all access.

She added that if she had to wait until age 16 to use certain apps, she would likely join them later because more of her older friends would already be there.Kit, 12, took a different position and supported a stricter approach similar to Australia’s restrictions on some social media platforms for younger users. He said social media could become addictive and affect friendships and mental health.

His brother Xander, 14, disagreed with a full ban, saying social media can have educational benefits. He argued that parents should play a larger role in managing children’s online activity and warned that sudden restrictions could face resistance from young users.Some participants supported limiting access rather than banning platforms altogether.

Blair, 12, said children should be allowed to use many apps but that some services were too dangerous for younger users.The government has been examining whether restrictions should focus specifically on platforms considered harmful while allowing safer services to remain available under stricter rules. Another issue being considered is whether banning certain platforms could expose teenagers to unsafe content elsewhere when they eventually gain full access.

Lekso, 16, who uses Snapchat and Instagram, said time limits could be an effective starting point. He said social media was not only about entertainment but also communication with friends and communities.

Andrew, 13, also supported limits on usage. He suggested restricting access during school days because of academic responsibilities and allowing limited use during weekends. He said social media could easily become distracting and difficult to stop using.Parents have largely supported stronger restrictions.

A survey cited in the debate found that nine in 10 UK parents support banning social media access for children under 16. However, the teenagers consulted showed that young users are not united on the issue.

Nino Dvalidze, a parent involved in organising the discussion and founder of Young Minds App, said the focus should be on helping children use technology safely rather than creating fear around digital tools.The discussion reflects a wider challenge for policymakers: balancing protection from online risks with young people’s access to communication, learning and creativity.

While many teenagers acknowledge problems linked to social media, their responses suggest that approaches involving supervision, limits and platform changes may be viewed differently from a complete ban.As one participant noted, decisions about online rules will have a direct impact on young people, even though they are often made by adults.

Shoeb Siddiqi

If their sacrifices result in abandoning them, then that would be more than death for them.

Parents are the original P.P.E for their children, they are our “Personal Protective Equipment” in our childhood against all odds, and elderly parents are an obligation on children, especially in Indian culture, care for elderly parents is perceived as a filial obligation. If not, it is the moral responsibility of the children to take care of their aging parents. Any child would go beyond his/her capacity to take care of the parents to ensure they survive this pandemic or at least live their lives with dignity.

While dealing with aging parents it is certainly stressful to control emotions as caretakers, helping them, smiling at them, talking to them, not letting them feel alone or left out. The very people whom you were dependent on in past, now they need your assistance possibly professional help.

More often children are considered as assets for supporting parents in their old age, however, it is devastating to read the incidents of children abandoning their parents at a time when the pandemic is gripping all over the world, while mostly the elderly ones being vulnerable to it, or the ones with comorbidities need to be taken care.

• In a report 70-year-old paralyzed mother was abandoned on road by her three sons, who later took her after police counseled them.

• In a shocking incident in Andhra Pradesh’s Guntur district, a man abandoned his 80-year-old ailing mother at a bus station and fled after she was tested positive for COVID-19.

• A daughter denied performing the funeral last rites of her father in Telangana’s Suryapet. She drew his savings of Rs 4,00,000 and did not help him getting treated.

• An 80-year-old father who worked for his entire life and shared his savings of Rs 8 Crore, went homeless later due to his sons.

• In Medchal, a 77-year-old mother, who was unwell for quite some time, was left abandoned at a bus stop after his son snatched away Rs 40,000 from her.

• A similar incident was reported in Hyderabad, an elderly woman was left, but later one of his grandsons took her back.

It is unfortunate to see such incidents occurring at the peak of this pandemic. Parents suffer and provide luxuries to their children even if they are unable to meet their own necessities. If their sacrifices result in abandoning them, then that would be more than death for them.

• Akin to this, a 50-year-old single mother traveled 1,400 km in lockdown to bring back his stranded son on a moped, even the youngsters making road trips on their cruise bikes wouldn’t be able to take up such missions, but it is the love and determination that enabled her to undertake this extraordinary journey.

• Migrant labor from on a 1,300 km walk from Andhra Pradesh to Chhattisgarh was spotted carrying his two children on a milkmaid’s yoke, this reminded many Indians the story of Shravan Kumar carrying his old blind parents on two baskets.

• A woman laborer was found dragging her five-year-old son on a suitcase, setting on her journey of 800 kms. The incident wrenched the hearts of many during the lockdown.

• In a similar experience, one of my close friends, traveled to look after his ill-father, it took him 28 hours of long drive that was 1,500 km road trip. With the fear that he would be dissuaded by the state police, he sought permits from about three to four states, and he spent most of his saving in treating his father.

Religion of Islam has ordained the children to honor and respect their parents and look after them while they are aging.

God instructs in the Quran to treat parents with great consideration and if either of them reaches their old age, do not even use expressions of frustrations.

“And your Lord has decreed that you not worship except Him, and to parents, good treatment. Whether one or both of them reach old age [while] with you, say not to them [so much as], ‘uff’, and do not repel them but speak to them a noble word. And lower to them the wing of humility out of mercy and say, “My Lord, have mercy upon them as they brought me up [when I was] small.” [Quran 17:22-23]

“And We have enjoined upon man [care] for his parents. His mother carried him, [increasing her] in weakness upon weakness, and his weaning is in two years. Be grateful to Me and to your parents; to Me is the [final] destination.” [Quran 31:14]

Prophet Mohammed (peace be upon him) said: “God has forbidden to be undutiful to mothers”.

Living parents are more important to be looked after than the holiness of Jihad, as narrated by Abdullah Ibn Amr, that a man asked Prophet (peace be upon him) regarding his participation in Jihad. Prophet asked him to look after his parents if they are alive, and said “Do Jihad for their benefit”.

It’s seriously disheartening to see people mistreating and abandoning their parents, while it’s incumbent upon them to understand that PPE stands for Pandemic Parents and Emotions.