The tragic suicide of three minor sisters in Ghaziabad on February 4 has reignited a nationwide discussion on digital addiction, with renewed demands to restrict or ban social media access for minors in India.Amid the growing calls for regulation, filmmaker Ram Gopal Varma has pushed back strongly against the idea of banning social media for children under 16. Weighing in on the debate, Varma argued that such prohibitions may do more harm than good in an era driven by speed, information access, and global connectivity. In a detailed note titled “BAN THE BANNERS,” the director took to social media and maintained that well-meaning restrictions could end up disadvantaging young people in the long run by cutting them off from platforms that play a key role in modern learning and skill-building.He opened his post by stating, “The core problem with banning social media to protect children under 16 from so-called offensive content will also handicap them in today’s hyper-competitive global information economy.”Elaborating on his point, Varma dismissed the idea that social media is merely a distraction. “It’s foolish to think social media is just a frivolous distraction because in today’s times, it’s the primary pipeline for real-time knowledge, skills, and networks that determine who gets ahead,” he wrote. He added that children in countries without such bans benefit from constant exposure to platforms offering fast-paced, engaging learning. “Kids in countries without bans will gain constant exposure to cutting-edge learning resources like YouTube tutorials, Reddit threads, TikTok explainers, and global forums that teach coding, languages, entrepreneurship, science, and current events faster and more engagingly than traditional classrooms.”Varma also warned that policy-driven restrictions could deepen inequality between children who remain digitally connected and those who are not. He explained, “Instant access to diverse perspectives, breaking news, and opportunities that kids in restricted countries only encounter later, if at all, through much slower and curated channels will create a stark competitive inequality.” Drawing a comparison, he added, “A 14-year-old in a non-banning country builds an intuitive mastery of information flows, builds online communities, experiments with ideas, and stays ahead of a counterpart in a banning country like Australia where the kids will miss the informal education, the discoveries, and the early digital social capital that will compound over time into better education outcomes, career edges, and innovative thinking.“While acknowledging the intent behind such bans, Varma argued that the approach fails to reflect how the modern world functions. “The ‘protection’ rationale of banning sounds noble, but it ignores how the modern world actually works. Information speed is now a decisive factor in both personal and national success,” he wrote. According to him, “Banning access will not eliminate risks.. it simply outsources the information advantage to children elsewhere, widening the very inequalities governments claim to care about.” He further cautioned that delayed exposure could leave young people ill-prepared. “Kids will still encounter the world eventually, but those denied early, guided exposure risk entering it less prepared, less adaptable, and less informed than the unrestricted.”Concluding his argument, Varma stressed that limiting access could have lasting consequences. “In an era where knowledge compounds exponentially online, these bans don’t safeguard childhood, but they will create a generation of digital latecomers, structurally behind in the global race for ideas, skills, and opportunities,” he said. He also questioned the emphasis on harmful content, adding, “The ‘offensive content’ excuse, while real in isolated cases, pales against the systemic cost of information deprivation in a competitive world. This should be a critical warning about trading long-term capability for short-term safety procedures.”
