As a wave of nations from Egypt to Australia moves to bar young teens from social media, South Africa’s government is taking a markedly cautious stance, acknowledging that a blanket ban could be a “cosmetic intervention” without the legal and technical muscle to enforce it.
Communications Minister Solly Malatsi confirmed the government is considering stronger online safety rules, including potential age restrictions, to combat rising cyberbullying, grooming, and exposure to harmful content. The approach, however, contrasts with the decisive bans enacted elsewhere, reflecting a conundrum in regulating global tech giants that operate largely beyond the reach of local law.
The global push is gaining momentum as Australia has prohibited children under 16 from social media accounts, France is fast-tracking a ban for those under 15, and Egypt’s parliament is drafting similar restrictions. The core justification is mounting evidence linking social media use to youth mental health issues.
South Africa, where over half of all internet activity is on social media, shares these concerns. However, Minister Malatsi highlights a fundamental weakness in simply copying these models. “There’s always a temptation… to say, ‘Let’s put bans, let’s put restrictions in place,'” he stated on the Cape Talk podcast. “Prior to doing that, we have to capacitate ourselves with enough mechanisms. Otherwise, we end up having cosmetic interventions that seem like we are doing something”.
The primary enforcement hurdle is jurisdiction. Emma Sadleir, a social media law expert, told MyBroadband that a South African ban would be largely unenforceable because most major platforms lack registered offices in the country. “There would be no companies to fine or representatives to hold responsible,” she explained. Australia’s model imposes multi-million dollar fines on the companies themselves for non-compliance, a tool South Africa currently lacks.
Even if political will existed for a strict ban, the practical tool of age verification presents its own problems. Malatsi has pointed out the ease with which minors circumvent existing checks, such as using a friend’s identification. Implementing more robust, government-backed digital identity checks raises significant privacy questions for a public already wary of data misuse.
Meanwhile, the government is simultaneously developing the very tools that could enable such verification. It is piloting a national mobile driver’s license (mDL) as part of its “MyMzansi” digital identity roadmap, a system designed for secure remote verification with banks and other services. This creates a tension in building a state-backed digital ID for economic inclusion while resisting its potential use for social media age-gating over privacy fears.
The social media debate sits within South Africa’s larger, often contradictory, digital ambitions. The government’s “Digital Economy Masterplan” champions connectivity, skills, and investment. Yet, these goals can clash with restrictive policies. For instance, nearly half the population remains digitally inactive, partly due to the high cost of smartphones. A social media ban, while aimed at protection, could be seen as another barrier to digital participation for younger citizens.
Ultimately, South Africa’s hesitation suggests it is caught between the urgent need to protect children in a digital Wild West and the practical realities of regulating borderless technology with limited tools. The path forward, as Malatsi suggests, may not be a headline-grabbing ban but a slower, more complex build-up of enforcement capacity, legal frameworks for platform accountability, and digital literacy.
