Age-tiered socmed access over outright ban
How do we make the digital space safe for children amid online harms that lurk across social media, content-sharing platforms, video-sharing services, online forums, and messaging apps?
That is a complex question that the proposed Child Online Safety and Protection Act of 2026 seeks to answer and remedy, although the measure covers both offline and online forms of child abuse.
But the current shape of the proposed act raises another crucial question: whether it should include age-tiered access to high-risk digital platforms, a general child digital duty of care covering cyberbullying, self-harm promotion, and nonsexual predatory design, and regulation of algorithmic recommendations. Undoubtedly, these measures can arm law enforcement agencies with a sharper sword against digital platforms that lack sufficient guardrails to stem the tide of sexual exploitation of children.
House Bill No. 9461 and Senate Bill No. 1819, pending at the bicameral conference committee, aim to strengthen law enforcement against online sexual abuse and exploitation of children and child sexual abuse or exploitation materials (CSAEM), both of which are currently penalized under a four-year-old Republic Act No. 11930. Once reconciled and signed into law by President Marcos, the consolidated bill will repeal and replace RA 11930.
‘Grooming, inducement, predation.’ SB 1819’s short title is “Safeguarding Against Grooming, Inducement and Predation and Building Accountability for Technology-Facilitated Abuse or Exploitation (Sagip Bata) Act.” Its aim is clear as day: protecting minors “from all forms of sexual violence, abuse, and exploitation, whether committed online, offline, or a combination of both, by strengthening measures for prevention, deterrence, and intervention against these crimes.”
The bill addresses threats such as the use of AI in the sexualization and exploitation of children. It also prohibits acts like coercing, producing, disseminating, streaming, and luring children for child sexual abuse, as well as inducing children to commit violent acts. The bill criminalizes grooming—defined as “deliberate, predatory” or “repeated” actions “to build trust, gain access, exert influence” over children for sexual purposes or CSAEM production—and luring, which involves intentionally communicating with children to entice or persuade them to engage in sexual activities.
But are these enough to provide protective layers for children online?
If you ask the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI), at least five gaps still exist that the bill should address because existing laws do not cover them.
Tiered framework. In a report to Congress accessed by this columnist, the NBI Office of the Director recognized the wisdom of HB 9461 and, rather than duplicating the measure, recommended a legislative remedy to be “nested inside the bill,” as follows:
age-tiered access to high-risk digital platforms; a general child digital duty of care covering cyberbullying, self-harm promotion, and nonsexual predatory design; regulation of algorithmic recommendations for harms beyond CSAEM detection; a statutory definition of, and safeguards against, nihilistic violent extremism; and a risk-tiered platform classification methodology for the harms above.
According to the NBI proposal, children ages 0-12 cannot have independent accounts on high-risk social media platforms. Children ages 13-15 would need verified parental approval to have accounts, while those ages 16-17 can access independent accounts but must use teen safety mode. Adults ages 18 and older would have full access to the standard platform environment.
The NBI favors a “graduated, tiered framework—rather than a single cutoff or an outright prohibition,” such as the under-16 restriction in Australia, Indonesia, and Malaysia. The bureau notes that the proposed tiered framework aligns with the Philippines’ obligations under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child and protects children without unduly restricting their access to information.
I share the rationale for a tiered approach because government regulation should prioritize children’s welfare and safety. It’s common sense that children should not be exposed to high-risk social media platforms as adults are.
All these digital platforms, including video game developers and technology platforms, are based outside our country, yet they reap the financial benefits without effective accountability.
The solution is straightforward: instead of imposing a digital ban on the child, platforms should implement verified age gating, usage limits, and time-based access controls. The duty of care rests with covered platform operators, or they risk a P20 million fine per violation. As the NBI succinctly said: “Age tiers set the boundaries of access, but a duty of care governs what a platform must actually do, continuously, for every minor inside those boundaries—including minors who evade age gates, a risk no verification system fully eliminates.”
—————-
For comments: lim.mike04@gmail.com
