Rethinking the Social Media in the Age of Bans

 

The debate over social media has entered a new phase. The Chief Minister of Karnataka, in his recent budget speech has announced that the state would introduce restrictions on social media use for children under sixteen, citing concerns about digital addiction and the psychological effects of excessive online exposure. Reports suggest that other states too are contemplating similar actions. These discussions on banning the social media are not occurring in isolation. Across the world, governments are grappling with the same dilemma. Countries such as Australia has enacted strict laws restricting social media access for minors, while several European nations are debating comparable policies. Such concerns and anxieties driving these decisions are understandable. 

Anyone who spends time on social networks is familiar with the flood of forwards, unverified claims, and sensational opinions that circulate endlessly. Social media platforms are frequently blamed for spreading misinformation, fuelling addictive digital behaviour, and amplifying unverified claims that many derisively label “WhatsApp University”, an epithet for the avalanche of misinformation that overwhelms digital conversations. 

In such a climate, rush to ban, regulate or restrict the medium appear both inevitable and politically attractive. However, a deeper question deserves reflection, is the platform the real problem, or is it the way we choose to use it?

Amid the torrents of triviality that populate the social media digital spaces, one occasionally encounters genuine nuggets of intellectual value—posts that inform, educate, and inspire.These reminders of scholarship reveal an important truth: the medium itself is not inherently flawed. The responsibility lies largely with its users—how they engage with it. 

History offers instructive parallels. Whenever transformative technologies emerge, society experiences both their benefits and concerns. The invention of the printing press by Gutenberg in the fifteenth century revolutionised the spread of knowledge. Books became more accessible, literacy expanded, and ideas began to circulate more widely than ever before. Yet the same printing presses also produced material filled with superstition,propaganda and sensationalism. The technology itself was neutral; its consequences depended on the intentions of those who used it, and therefore banning technology makes no sense. 

The pattern has repeated itself with nearly every major communication innovation—from radio to television and now to the digital networks. Social media is the latest chapter in that long historical narrative. Digital landscape today is not entirely devoid of meaningful content. A growing number of institutions - ISRO, Nobel Prize, Discovery, NASA - scientists and scholars have begun using these platforms to communicate directly to wider audiences. These examples illustrate an important point: the same platforms that spread filth can also disseminate knowledge.

The real challenge for the government is not merely to ban or regulate social media but to facilitate populating it with better and more meaningful content. This challenge assumes significance for India, where nearly two-thirds of the population is under the age of thirty-five and millions of young people rely on digital platforms as their primary gateway to information. Every year, government ministries, universities, publicly funded institutions and policy bodies produce a vast array of content, reports, surveys and scientific studies—often at public expense. Yet much of this valuable knowledge remains buried within ministry websites, institutional archives or technical reports that rarely reach the wider public. Only a small circle of specialists, policymakers or researchers are benefitted from this. For the vast majority of citizens, including the country’s digital-native generation, this knowledge might as well not exist.

The result is a peculiar paradox of the digital age: while societies speak of transparency and knowledge sharing, enormous reservoirs of information remain confined to institutional silos.

Social media can offer potential remedy.

Instead of allowing Social media to be dominated by sensational forwards and superficial debates, government and public institutions could proactively bring credible knowledge into the digital public sphere. Ministries, scientific laboratories, universities and public sector organisations could collaborate with young communicators, educators and digital creators to translate complex content into accessible summaries, short videos (reels), visual explanations and engaging narratives that younger audiences consume.

Such initiatives would not only improve public understanding but also democratise access to knowledge that taxpayers have already funded. Information that lies buried within institutional portals could reach millions through platforms that young citizens interact with daily. Equally important is the responsibility of scholars, educators and professionals who care about public knowledge. Rather than abandoning social media to superficiality, they too must be motivated to engage actively with these spaces. Thoughtful participation—whether through explaining scientific discoveries, contextualising historical events or sharing insights from research—can gradually reshape the quality of online discourse.

Finding knowledge in the digital age, however, still requires discernment. A helpful metaphor comes from the life of the pioneering scientist Marie Curie. In her research on radioactivity, Curie processed tonnes of pitchblende ore to isolate tiny traces of radium. The process demanded patience, perseverance and an unwavering belief that something valuable lay hidden within seemingly unremarkable material. Navigating social media today requires a similar effort. Amid vast quantities of digital “ore,” there are indeed fragments of genuine insight waiting to be explored. 

A society’s digital culture ultimately reflects the collective choices of its citizens. If millions circulate misinformation, misinformation will flourish. But if millions share thoughtful ideas, credible knowledge too will find its audience.

The question, therefore, is not whether social media is inherently harmful or beneficial. The question is whether we are wise enough to use it well.

In India, the challenge is not merely to regulate technology but to elevate its use. Governments, scientists, educators and communicators must recognise that the digital public space is here to stay. Rather than dismissing it or retreating from it, they must help shape it.

In the rush to regulate technology, societies would do well to remember an old journalistic wisdom: don’t shoot the messenger. The real task before us is not to silence the platform, but to ensure that it carries better messages.