(Part 2)

Different sectors of society have their respective responsibilities in promoting what Pope Leo XIV calls an “ecology of communication.”

For families and schools, this means responding to the growing need for new educational awareness and formation on the proper and critical use of digital tools, AI, and online commercial and financial platforms, as Pope Leo XIV wrote in the encyclical Magnificent Humanity.

At the university level, educators must help students integrate knowledge by cultivating both the ability to connect and synthesize information in order to understand complexity, and the skills needed to verify facts. In this context, the role of the liberal arts is clear. Although the Philippines needs to encourage more young people to pursue TESDA-related technical or vocational courses after high school, there is no justification for removing the liberal arts — such as philosophy, literature, the social sciences, math, and the sciences — from the college curriculum, as some legislators and education officials are proposing in the name of saving time and money.

More than ever, these humanizing studies, precisely called the “Humanities,” are essential for developing critical thinking, effective communication skills, and the ability to relate different fields of knowledge to one another. Those abilities are indispensable in counteracting the dehumanizing effects of AI and other digital tools.

The Pope also speaks of the need for an educational alliance for the digital age. Within that framework, it is important to encourage the growing practice of parents closely monitoring the use of digital devices, especially AI. As he wrote: “We must learn, then, how to exercise restraint in the use of AI and to protect our young people from the promise of the perfect machine, from that subtle temptation which renders human thought seemingly superfluous precisely when it is most needed.”

There are already more than enough cases of young people being harmed, even to the point of suicide, by unlimited and unsupervised access to AI and social media. Just recently, in June 2026, one of the two minors who shot and killed several students in Tacloban, Leyte, wore a T-shirt with the same symbol used by perpetrators of similar crimes in the United States, indicating the negative influence of social media on the youth. The Philippine government has since moved to block violent online games and what is called the 764 Network, which primarily targets children and teenagers on social media and gaming platforms. The network engages in sextortion, blackmail, and the manipulation of vulnerable youth into severe self-harm, animal abuse, and violence.

As Pope Leo XIV pointed out: “In recent years, psychological and psychiatric literature has documented with growing insistence how early and unsupervised exposure to digital devices and social media can negatively impact sleep, attention span, control of emotions and relationships, especially during the most vulnerable stages of life, at time with tragic consequences. This is further aggravated by easy access to violent or degrading content that offends sensibility, to pornographic and hypersexualized material, to messages that trivialize the body and emotions, and to proposals that normalize risky behavior.”

For this reason, the increasing trend among governments to restrict children’s access to social media should be welcomed, with Australia as a pioneer. In Australia, children under 16 cannot hold accounts on major social media platforms, including TikTok, Instagram, Facebook, Snapchat, X, YouTube, Reddit, Twitch, and others. Responsibility for preventing underage access through age verification lies with the platforms, not with parents or children. Heavy fines are imposed on companies that fail to comply with these legal restrictions. Australia’s law, passed in late 2024, places the compliance burden squarely on tech companies, though questions remain about the reliability of age-verification technologies — which include biometric age estimation, document checks, and third-party assurance services — and about how platforms will balance effective enforcement with user privacy.

In the United Kingdom, the government has announced plans to prohibit social media use by those under 16. Platforms such as TikTok, Instagram, Facebook, Snapchat, YouTube, and X are among those covered. The planned rules would also restrict stranger contact, romantic AI chatbots, and certain addictive design features for minors. Legislation is being prepared to take effect in 2027. The UK’s moves build on the framework of its Online Safety Act, which already obliges platforms to assess and mitigate risks to children.

In France, children under 15 need parental consent to create social media accounts, with enforcement strengthened through mandatory age verification. In Germany, users aged 13 to 16 require parental consent to use social media, and there are ongoing proposals to raise the minimum age to 16. In Italy, children under 14 need parental authorization to register for social media accounts. In Portugal, explicit parental consent is required for users aged 13 to 16. Companies that fail to comply may face fines based on global revenues. Across the EU, the Digital Services Act, in force since 2024, additionally requires large platforms to assess and mitigate systemic risks to minors’ safety, giving national-level restrictions a broader regulatory backbone.

In Denmark, major political parties support a ban on social media for children under 15. In Greece, the goal is to pass a law by 2027 that would prohibit social media access for children under 15 because of concerns about sleep deprivation, anxiety, and addictive platform design. Austria, Norway, Poland, and Canada are awaiting similar legislative measures to restrict social media access for children and teenagers.

In Southeast Asia, Indonesia was the first to implement a ban on children under 16 using major social platforms. Malaysia followed and began implementing the measures this year.

China has adopted perhaps the most comprehensive approach. Its measures include “minor mode” systems on devices and apps, screen-time limits for younger users, night-time curfews on certain online services, restrictions on content considered inappropriate, and real-name registration and age verification requirements. Rather than a simple social media ban, China regulates the broader digital environment for minors.

The case of Spain is especially striking because the country, after a long period under a leftist government, is known for a morally permissive society. Despite its deeply Catholic roots, the government has legalized abortion, same-sex marriage, and some form of euthanasia. It is therefore a surprise that it is taking a hard line on the harm social media can inflict on children. In an article that appeared in the Financial Times, Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez explained “why we must shield children from social media.”

He wrote: “We must ban social media for children, a measure supported by more than 70% of adults in the UK and the EU’s five largest countries. Spain is not alone in this. This week, together with France and 12 other countries, we are advancing a coordinated push at the EU level. In Spain, we have taken the final step to bring to a vote a child protection law that will include this ban, alongside broader measures. We must force companies like X, Instagram, and TikTok to remove from their algorithms all the elements that are fostering addiction, anxiety, and hate. And we must ensure that those who do not comply are held accountable under the law.”

It is time for the Philippines to also hold accountable those who harm the youth through the possible misuse of AI and other digital technologies. The Philippine Pediatric Society and the Philippine Society for Development and Behavioral Pediatrics have already warned against unsupervised use of social media by children 16 and under, citing risks to mental health. They have observed minors experiencing anxiety, sleep disturbance, and worsening behavioral and developmental symptoms.

Once lawmakers are no longer distracted by the ongoing circus in the Senate, they may want to study the three main models that have emerged in this salutary practice of restricting social media use among the young:

1. Outright bans or delayed access, as proposed by Spain’s Prime Minister Sanchez and adopted by numerous European countries, as well as Australia, Indonesia, and Malaysia in the region.
2. Parental-consent systems in France, Germany, Italy, and Portugal, where access is allowed only with parental approval.
3. Comprehensive digital regulation in China, combining age verification, screen-time limits, curfews, and content controls.

For Philippine lawmakers, a key practical consideration across all three models is the feasibility and accuracy of age-verification mechanisms, since any effective restriction depends on platforms reliably confirming a user’s age. Equally important is determining which enforcement body — whether a telecommunications regulator, a data-privacy authority, or a dedicated child-protection agency — would oversee compliance and impose penalties.

There should be a coalition of parents’ organizations, such as Parents for Education and the EDUCHILD Foundation, church-related associations, members of the academe, and other concerned citizens to identify the appropriate people in both the lower and upper houses of Congress who can craft suitable legislation, drawing on the various models already existing in other parts of the world.

This is an urgent task because of the very rapid evolution of the so-called Industrial Revolution 4.0, of which AI is only a part. As EU chief Ursula von der Leyen said in an interview with AFP: “It is not a question when children or teenagers would have access to social media. I would say it’s more the question when social media has access to our children and teenagers.”

(To be continued.)

(See Part 1 here: )

Bernardo M. Villegas has a Ph.D. in Economics from Harvard, is professor emeritus at the University of Asia and the Pacific, and a visiting professor at the IESE Business School in Barcelona, Spain. He was a member of the 1986 Constitutional Commission.

bernardo.villegas @uap.asia