South Korea’s debate on protecting teenagers online has now entered a fresh chapter following the remarks made by Kim Jong-cheol, a nominee to head South Korea’s premier broadcast and media regulator, when he testified before lawmakers that he would urge a ban on teenagers’ social media usage if he were to be appointed to the regulatory body. He described the matter as falling within the body’s mandate to ensure public communication remains both safe and orderly and suggested South Korea should do what Australia did to ban anyone under 16 from accessing platforms such as Instagram and Facebook.
Reuters
+1

What precisely transpired in South Korea

During a parliamentary hearing for confirmation as a deputy, Kim stated on December 16, 2025, that he will give a high priority to limiting teenagers’ social media use when he takes office. This is important because the head of the media/communications regulator has a high level of influence over how policy will evolve, for example, with regard to research, regulation, supervision, and ministry coordination when a digital-harms agenda is a high-level policy initiative.

Rather, the central point of Kim’s argument was that while social media is “bad,” there is a state function to secure the communication freedom and safety of the population in general, or at the very least the youth. The language of the argument carries specific weight in the South Korean context, where the regulation of social media necessarily balances the principles of freedom with those of public order and consumer protection.

why this topic is being brought up at this stage

Teen mental health problems, cyberspace bullying, harm associated with body image, compulsive use, and access to sexual- or violent-content problems have become political concerns worldwide, and politicians now find they have enough influence to begin regulating access, rather than falling back on parental supervision. Kim’s own statements reflect this trend, talking as they do of governments’ shifts from concern to regulation, using examples in other regions, particularly Australia.

The situation in Australia is being closely observed since it not only suggested better design but also the strictest possible age-based access standard, along with severe consequences for non-adherence, and enforcement through the regulator. This is the kind of measure that helps shape discourse on policy, especially in nations that have the capacity in both administration and digital engagement, which South Korea definitely has.

The role of the regulator: What powers may be exercised

The broadcasting and communications authority for South Korea (often simply termed as the “Korea Communications Commission/KCC” or “similar authority” in international circles) finds itself within the space of broadcasting, telecommunications, as well as consumer protection. Officially described functions include broadcasting and communications service regulation, consumer protection, and independence in broadcasting, which appear broad enough to encompass internet platforms, depending on interpretation.

This is important because “social media curbs” might actually be implemented in many different forms and not all of these will necessarily involve creating “a brand new ‘social media ban law.’” For example, they might be developed by adding:

platform safety responsibilities (assessment of risk, default rules regarding minors),

age assurance / age verification requirements ,

stricter enforcement of current laws related to youth protection, advertising, or harmful content, particularly when content is algorithmically recommended.
South Korea also has experience with identity-based systems on the net, making it relatively easy to enforce the law on age checks, although this does raise privacy concerns.

Tech Policy Press
So, what could “social media curbs” in real-life scenarios?

However, despite the alarming headlines that appear to advocate a single approach (‘control teens’ social media use’), there are in fact various approaches that governments might take. Should Kim’s vision become a set of proposals, they may take the following forms:

1) The age limits (the “minimum age” rule)
This is the most straightforward form, for example, “under 16 cannot hold accounts on certain platforms.” The Australian model has brought this issue into the international limelight, as Kim made specific mention of it.

Challenges: It needs sound age verification, a definition of which services constitute “social media,” and exemptions (education, messaging services, YouTube-type video-sharing sites, and so on). The enforcement will remain to be governed from the child/parent to the service provider, which needs to block access otherwise face the consequences of regulations.

2) Restrictions based on time of use (

It should be noted that South Korea already has a precedent when dealing with this matter; the so-called “Shutdown Law” or Cinderella Law regulated the online gaming of players under the age of 16 during late-night hours; eventually, this law was abrogated due to doubts regarding its efficiency and the rapid evolution of the online scenario.

If curfews make a comeback in a social media format, they could be introduced in the form of “default night mode for minors” or on a platform-level restriction related to notifications and algorithmic news feeds during a particular time.

3) Restrictions on designing related to ‘addiction features’

Rather than blocking use, regulators could use their powers to ensure changes to the product in use by minors, such as turning autoplay off, reducing excessive scrolling, limiting push notifications, ensuring “break reminders” are mandatory, or disabling engagement mechanics.

While this approach may prove easier to justify from a legal perspective (it’s less censorship, more food safety), it’s also difficult to define and implement.

4) Rules of content and contact safety for minors

Rules that might toughen defaults on:

who can message a minor,

whether a stranger can follow minors,

whether location can be shared,

the time span within which an Online Intermediary is required to respond to a report regarding grooming, harassment, or sexual exploitation.

“This is usually where regulators begin, as it’s more specific than an across-the-board age prohibition and complements frameworks for protecting children.” Such regulation applies to smoking tobacco. It is also where regulators begin when

5) Greater protections for teens in advertising and influencer marketing

The South Korean government is already working to address related issues of digital integrity, such as the issue of labeling advertisements that use AI so that there isn’t deception occurring online. The teen protection agenda could consider areas such as advertisements that reach teens, influencer marketing, and marketing of products that could put teens at risk.

“It’s tough to overstate the importance of a secure and reliable method for

Nearly all kinds of restrictions require recognizing whether a user is a minor. That’s where governments and sites intersect.

The levels of age verification range from light (self-asserted age) to strict (via ID verification), and methods like “age estimation” fall in between (via selfie pics, behaviors, devices). The deployment in Australia has evoked proposals for using selfies and ID verification or other methods and even concerns about the feasibility of age-bypass techniques.

In the South Korean context, the challenge is that the country already has experience with age verification related to national identity within the online environment. This increases the chances of age verification being implemented successfully. However, the downside is clear—the more age verification is implemented, the more the risk of breach and exploitation increases.

Thus, if Kim insists on teen restrictions, one of the first questions sure to be asked is how South Korea plans to square the privacy implications of a strict version of age verification or adjust a less strict one that could potentially be readily circumvented. Various political factions and non-governmental bodies will no doubt differentiate between one line and another.

Freedom of expression, youth rights, and digital citizenship

Social control of teens’ social media use has implications that range beyond children’s safety to issues of whether minors should be entitled to take part in public debate and be exposed to information. Extrastrict regulators argue that:

Social networking sites are currently a part of the social and civic learning experience of the younger generation,

may unevenly affect remote teens,

“Blanket bans” regard all youth equally vulnerable, no matter their level of maturity.

The argument on the opposing side
minors need greater safeguards against manipulative design and harmful content,

families are frequently inundated by the pace of innovation on platforms,

And, of course, there’s an obligation for the state to mitigate predictable harm as evidence builds.

This is a balance that Kim sets up with the terms “safe and free … orderly,” and how exactly that balance will be made will depend on the details.

The question is, can restrictions really be effective?

One of the topics that often crop up in digital policies is the difference that sometimes exists between what the law states and what actually happens. Despite strict policies, adolescents are able to:

borrow adults’ IDs,

use VPNs,

employ “shadow accounts,” or

migrate to other platforms which are less well-known and have less protection for

There are some lessons that can already be gleaned from Australia’s initial experiences in relation to the challenges of implementation and attempts to circumvent control mechanisms that may apply to any country which is contemplating a similar course in relation to medicare

The Guardian

“South Korea’s experience with the ‘game curfew’ also illustrates how highly motivated individuals can be in finding ways to circumvent obstacles—and how such obstructions can create secondary problems such as identity theft,”

This does not mean that restrictions on these groups are unnecessary; rather, it’s a matter of how policymakers define success. Success may be a function of:

decreasing average screen time?

by reducing exposure to certain kinds of content?

improved harassment and grooming?

improving sleep and mental health?

shifting platform incentives away from “engagement at all costs”?

Each goal calls for a different tool, and “one big ban” might not suit every goal equally well.

What could impact platforms, parents, and institutions of learning

If South Korea goes ahead and implements the restrictions on teenagers on social media platforms, they might have to

recraft onboarding and sign-up processes,
establish Korea-specific compliance schemes,

prescribe new default safeguards for minors,

add moderation and reporting capabilities,

and provide data on compliance with regulators.

For parents, the establishment of rules might come as a welcome respite (“I’m not the bad guy—not this rule”) but could also become the source of conflict if teens view the rules as unreasonable. “Some parents might view government support as assistance,” commented one respondent, “while others will view the government’s role as interfering with parenting decisions.” Schools may get affected as well – particularly if platforms become less accessible for schools or other educational purposes. A policy response may include an “education-safe” version of platforms or allowing schools limited use through verified accounts. A politics of distribution

In this context, Social regulation of teen usage of social media often provides a symbolic meaning: “protection of children” is an attractive policy that politicians are well aware of. However, when regulations become practical and are carried out in reality, resistance to them develops among tech companies, civil liberty activists, youth advocates, and even teachers. Kim’s statement in the nomination hearing reveals that if he becomes a regulator, he might use the power of agenda-setting to address issues promptly through studies, consultations, and proposals that conform to the emerging international standards. Reuters On the other hand, the recent history of South Korea introduces a willingness to revisit past measures that took more restrictive stances toward gaming (such as the gaming curfew) if evidence and societal conditions alter. South Korea might develop a “middle way” based on this history between requiring age bans and adopting safety design regulations and enforcement against undesirable behaviors. Next thing to watch If you’re interested in tracking where all of this goes, the below are the specific signals that are more significant than the headlines: Outcome of the confirmation process: Whether Kim is confirmed, and what kind of commitments he has made as a result of the process. Reuters Definition battle: What exactly constitutes “social media” (messaging apps? Video sites? Discussion forums?). “Age Identity Assurance Proposal: ID-based verification, age estimation, and hybrids—and what privacy assurances are offered.” Tech Policy Press +1 Scope: Only under 16, or Teenage groups; Nationwide or Phased. Enforcement model: Fines, “take down” powers, transparency reporting, audits, and/or cooperation on code development. Youth and Civil Society Input: Whether teens, parents, educators, and rights groups receive official input or representation. In short, Kim’s declaration is a starter gun, not a finish line. South Korea has the regulatory will—and the digital architecture on which to implement meaningful restrictions on teens on social media, but it is design decisions, particularly on privacy, that will determine whether it is a useful shield in a functional protection scheme, rather than a contentious rule teens will simply circumvent.