The Child Rights Network (CRN) said on Tuesday that a blanket ban on social media for children under 16 amounts to restriction rather than a genuine solution, as lawmakers push to implement age restrictions on online platforms.

"Children, just like adults, have digital rights – and the government must put the best interests of the child at the heart of every decision affecting those rights," the group said in a statement.

"Protecting children online, therefore, cannot simply mean keeping them away from the internet," it added. "It must also mean empowering them to thrive in it safely."

CRN, a coalition of organizations and advocates working on child rights in the Philippines, argued that the country is responsible for providing a digital environment that is not only safe but also accessible, inclusive, and enabling for children, as stated in General Comment No. 25 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC), to which the Philippines is a State Party. General Comment No. 25 provides guidance on how children's rights apply in the digital world.

"This is what is missing from the adults' push for a social media ban," the group said. "We are forgetting who we are supposedly trying to protect – and the very principles of digital governance that we have committed to uphold as a State Party to the UNCRC."

The group's opposition follows the endorsement of the proposed Child Online Safety and Protection Act, or Senate Bill No. 2424, to the Senate last week. Under the proposed bill, social media companies would be required to implement an age-assurance system that prevents those aged 16 and below from accessing their platforms. An age-assurance system inspects users' online behavior rather than verifying identity through the submission of valid IDs and other documents.

Senator Robinhood C. Padilla, one of the measure's authors and sponsors, said the proposal follows similar restrictions on social media use in 20 countries, including Australia.

"We understand that legislators seeking a social media ban mean well. But banning children from social media does not protect them from unsafe environments," CRN said. "Making the environment safer is what protects them."

Australia was the first country to restrict access to social media platforms nationwide for people 16 and under. However, a report by the country's independent government regulator, the eSafety Commissioner, showed that more than 81% of Australian children aged 10 to 15 still used social media three months after the ban took effect. Around 58% also used the platforms daily, down by only 2% from before the ban. The Australian experience has since become a reference point in debates elsewhere over whether age-based bans actually reduce children's exposure to online harm.

"This means that our human experience… cannot simply be contained," CRN said. "We cannot wish away the digital environment that the children have grown up in."

"We can do better than simply taking away their access, their participation, and their rights in the name of 'protection,'" the group added.

With the bill now before the Senate, the chamber's deliberations will determine whether the proposed age-assurance requirement advances in its current form or is revised in response to objections such as CRN's.

— Almira Louise S. Martinez