The findings also show strong support for regulation, with 83.4% backing restrictions on children’s access to social media.

The survey results were presented in Lagos during a roundtable on child online safety, organised in collaboration with the Nigeria Data Protection Commission (NDPC).

With 585 Nigerians taking part in the consultation, the survey examined risks, enforcement options and possible legal frameworks.

Among the group of respondents, 64.8% want outright regulation, while 18.6% prefer regulation tied to a different minimum age threshold.

Only 16.6% opposed regulation, while 51% said education and digital literacy should be prioritised instead, and 40% pointed to parental supervision tools as a better precaution.

Age preference also split responses, with 36.8% saying 16 years should be the minimum age for access, closely aligning with Australia’s recent approach. Another 27.7% preferred 17 years. A smaller share, 13%, supported the global platform standard for 13 years.

Harmful content emerged as the most reported risk, cited by 90.9% of respondents. Digital addiction followed at 83.6%, while 82.4% pointed to online grooming as a major threat.

The survey also found that 74.5% believe children and parents do not fully understand the legal consequences of cyber offences. Almost all respondents, 97.6%, supported a duty-of-care approach requiring platforms to take proactive steps against harm.

Communications Minister Bosun Tijani said the consultation reveals the pace of change in the digital space and the need for policy to keep up.

He said, “The debate should focus on implementing age restrictions effectively rather than questioning the need for such safeguards.

“Nigeria can deploy digital identity infrastructure and existing platform verification systems to strengthen enforcement of age-based social media regulations.

“The fact that some people may bypass regulations is not a reason for safeguards not to exist.”

Tijani added that social media still offers opportunities for learning and innovation, but children must remain protected from exploitation, harmful content and other risks.

He also said enforcement would require cooperation across government, parents, schools and technology platforms.

NDPC National Commissioner, Dr Vincent Olatunji, also spoke about the risks facing children online. He pointed to cyberbullying, cyberstalking, exposure to harmful content and mental health pressures as key issues.

He also mentioned that access to the internet is highly important for education and development, but protection measures must sit alongside that access. Olatunji described child online safety as a shared responsibility across government agencies, families, schools and platform operators.

The discussion encapsulates a global shift in children’s access to social media. Several countries have already introduced, or are moving towards, better age-based management.

Australia introduced a ban on social media access for children under 16 in December 2025, requiring platforms such as TikTok, Instagram and YouTube to restrict underage users. Indonesia has also announced plans for a similar restriction.

In Europe, Denmark is preparing to ban social media for children under 15. The Danish government secured backing from both coalition and opposition parties in November 2025. France passed a bill in January 2026 banning social media use for children under 15, with President Emmanuel Macron supporting the measure.

These developments show a policy trend where governments treat child online safety as a public concern that extends beyond regulation of content alone. In several cases, it now sits alongside debates on health, education and digital identity systems.

In Nigeria, the proposed direction indicates a combination of age restrictions and verification systems rather than a single enforcement model. Officials have pointed to digital identity infrastructure and platform-level verification tools as possible mechanisms.

The survey indicates strong public appetite for intervention, especially given the level of concern about exposure to harmful content, addiction and grooming risks. At the same time, a smaller but notable group continues to argue for education and parental oversight rather than formal restrictions.

The government says no final decision has been made, insisting that any policy will follow nationwide consultation before implementation.

The company said on Tuesday it will apply its latest detection tools in 27 European Union countries and also bring the system to Facebook in the US for the first time, with the UK and EU rollout on that platform set to follow in June.

This builds on earlier work to identify teenagers even when they enter false birth dates. Meta has been testing systems that flag accounts it believes belong to younger users and then apply stricter settings automatically.

“This technology will be expanded to 27 countries in the European Union. Meta is also expanding this technology to Facebook in the United States for the first time, with the UK and EU to follow in June,” the company said in a blog post.

Pressure has been growing on technology firms to show how they protect young users. Regulators and parents have complained about harmful content, online abuse and the effect of social media on teenagers.

Meta says it now relies more on artificial intelligence to assess whether an account belongs to a minor. The system does not depend only on the date of birth entered by users. Instead, it reviews activity across profiles.

That includes posts, comments, captions and other signals. For example, references to school life or birthday celebrations may point to a younger age. The company has also added visual analysis, allowing its systems to review images and videos for general age cues.

Meta stressed that the technology is not facial recognition, saying the system looks at broad features, not identity.

If an account is judged to be underage, it may be deactivated, while the user would then need to prove their age to restore access. Meta is also trying to stop repeat attempts by users it believes are below the minimum age.

At the same time, Meta is expanding its “Teen Account” settings. These place limits on who can contact younger users and the type of content they see. Accounts suspected to belong to teenagers are moved into these settings by default.

The company further revealed it has already enrolled hundreds of millions of users into these protections across Instagram, Facebook and Messenger since 2024.

For parents, Meta will begin sending notifications in the US with guidance on how to check a teenager’s age settings. The messages will include advice on discussing honest age reporting online.

“We’re continuing to strengthen our underage enforcement measures by using AI to remove people under 13 from our services.”

Meta added that age verification is an industry problem. It said app stores should take a stronger role by confirming users’ ages and sharing that information with developers.

Driving its own systems, Meta plans to expand the technology further this year, aiming for more global coverage.

The regulator said it had reviewed evidence and decided to examine whether Telegram has failed, or is failing, to meet its legal duties on illegal content under the Online Safety Act 2023.

The case adds to complaints on online platforms operating in the United Kingdom, where authorities want stronger protection for children from harm online.

Ofcom said the law requires platforms to reduce risks linked to illegal material and act where such content appears. It added that companies must be able to show they are meeting those duties.

Telegram rejected the allegations.

The company said it “categorically” denied Ofcom’s accusations. It added that since 2018 it had “virtually eliminated” the public spread of child sexual abuse material through detection algorithms.

Telegram also said, “We are surprised by this investigation and concerned that it may be part of a broader attack on online platforms that defend freedom of speech and the right to privacy.”

The regulator also opened separate investigations into Teen Chat and Chat Avenue. It said it was unconvinced that both platforms were doing enough to protect children from grooming risks.

Suzanne Cater, Ofcom’s director of Enforcement, said, “These firms must do more to protect children, or face serious consequences under the Online Safety Act.”

The inquiry comes as Keir Starmer’s government pushes for tighter online safeguards, especially for younger users.

Telegram has faced similar cases elsewhere. In February, Australia’s online safety regulator fined the company after delays in answering questions about measures against child abuse and violent extremist material.

The UK law is considered one of the strictest internet safety frameworks in the world. It places direct responsibility on platforms to tackle illegal and harmful content or risk enforcement action.

The probe, announced on Thursday, falls under the Digital Services Act, which requires large platforms to protect against harmful and illegal content or face heavy penalties.

EU officials say they are investigating how the app handles risks such as child grooming, exposure to drugs and other illegal goods, and weak account protections for younger users.

“From grooming ⁠and exposure to illegal products to account settings that undermine minors’ safety, Snapchat appears to have overlooked that the Digital Services Act demands high safety standards for all users,” EU tech chief Henna Virkkunen said in a statement.

At the centre of the case is whether Snapchat has put in place enough precautions to stop adults from contacting or exploiting minors. Regulators are also examining how easily illegal goods such as drugs, vapes and alcohol can be promoted or sold through the platform.

The European Commission said Snapchat’s content moderation tools may not be strong enough to prevent such activity.

It also spoke about the company’s age verification system, which largely relies on users declaring their own age, as well as default settings that could leave younger users exposed.

Another issue under review is the platform’s design, including features regulators describe as “dark patterns”, which may make it harder for users to report problems or understand privacy settings.

Snapchat, owned by Snap Inc., said it is working with regulators and reviewing its systems to ensure child safety and general protection.

“We have fully cooperated with the Commission to date – engaging proactively, transparently and working in good faith to meet the DSA’s high safety standards – and we will continue to do so throughout this ‌investigation,” a spokesperson said.

The Commission has also taken over an earlier investigation by Dutch authorities into the alleged sale of vapes to minors on the platform.

Snapchat has about 97 million monthly users across the EU, most of them teenagers and young adults. Regulators believe this makes the platform particularly vulnerable to abuse, including cases where adults pose as minors to target younger users.

Under the Digital Services Act, companies found in breach can be fined up to 6% of their global annual revenue. With Snap reporting about $5.2 billion in revenue last year, any penalty could run into hundreds of millions of dollars.

Generally, investigations regarding child safety and other aspects are already underway into TikTok, Meta Platforms, and AliExpress, among others, as regulators step up enforcement of the law, hence, this isn’t limited to Snapchat.

Brussels has made known it wants the Digital Services Act to set the standard for online safety, especially when it comes to protecting children.

The development comes after years of legal and political challenges, which threatened to ban the app for more than 200 million Americans.

The new entity, TikTok USDS Joint Venture LLC, will house U.S. user data and algorithms under strict cybersecurity measures. American and global investors will hold 80.1% of the venture, leaving ByteDance with 19.9%. 

Oracle, Silver Lake, and Abu Dhabi-based MGX are the managing investors, each with a 15% stake. TikTok’s U.S. data and recommendation algorithm will be hosted on Oracle’s U.S. cloud, allowing oversight while ByteDance continues to manage revenue-generating operations like advertising and e-commerce.

The venture’s leadership includes former TikTok USDS executives Adam Presser as CEO and Will Farrell as chief security officer. TikTok CEO Shou Chew joins the board to provide strategic guidance. 

The JV will retrain and update TikTok’s content algorithm to ensure it operates solely on U.S. user data.

This deal results from the Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act, passed in April 2024. The law required ByteDance to divest TikTok’s U.S. assets or face a nationwide ban, a provision upheld by the Supreme Court in January 2025. 

Without the divestiture, TikTok risked removal from app stores and halted updates, which could have significantly weakened the platform’s U.S. presence.

The agreement received bipartisan attention. Former President Donald Trump, who first tried to ban the app in 2020 over national security concerns, praised the venture as “owned by a group of Great American Patriots and Investors.” 

The White House confirmed that both U.S. and Chinese authorities signed off on the deal, although the Chinese Embassy in Washington has not yet commented publicly.

The joint venture is part of a U.S.-China technology rivalry. In separating U.S. user data and algorithms from ByteDance’s global operations, the structure aligns with earlier national security debates surrounding Chinese tech firms. 

TikTok’s U.S. operations are effectively split, the venture oversees data and backend operations, while ByteDance maintains commercial operations, including e-commerce and advertising.

Investors include high-profile firms such as the Dell Family Office, Vastmere Strategic Investments, Alpha Wave Partners, Revolution, Merritt Way, Via Nova, Virgo LI, and NJJ Capital. 

TikTok aims to comply with U.S. law and also to reassure users and regulators about data security while maintaining the app’s growth and influence in the U.S.

This is designed to avert a nationwide ban and settle long-running security challenges with Washington.

Under the binding agreement, ByteDance will cut its stake to 19.9%, while investors led by Oracle, Silver Lake and Abu Dhabi’s MGX will collectively take 80.1% ownership of a newly formed company, TikTok USDS Joint Venture LLC. 

The structure is intended to satisfy U.S. laws that demand the separation of TikTok’s American business from Chinese control.

The arrangement follows legislation passed by Congress in April 2024 that required ByteDance to divest TikTok’s U.S. operations or face a ban. The Supreme Court upheld the law in January 2025, setting a January deadline. This joint venture, due to close on 22 January, is meant to meet that requirement.

Ownership alone, however, has not ended the issue. The new entity will be run by a seven-member board, with Americans holding most seats. ByteDance will appoint one director. Oracle has been named the “trusted security partner” and will be responsible for auditing compliance and protecting US user data, which will be stored on Oracle’s cloud infrastructure inside the United States.

TikTok’s chief executive, Shou Zi Chew, told staff that the venture would “operate as an independent entity with authority over U.S. data protection, algorithm security, content moderation and software assurance,” according to an internal memo. 

He also said TikTok’s global US entities would separately handle “global product interoperability and certain commercial activities, including e-commerce, advertising, and marketing”.

Even so, there’s still uncertainty over the heart of the platform, its recommendation algorithm. Former U.S. officials and analysts say it is still not clear if the algorithm has been transferred, licensed, or remains under ByteDance’s control, with Oracle potentially limited to oversight rather than ownership.

Reports from Chinese media have suggested ByteDance may continue to play an operational role or receive revenue from the US business, leading to questions about Beijing’s influence despite the new structure.

President Donald Trump has openly credited TikTok with helping his re-election and maintains a large following on the app. His administration has also launched an official White House TikTok account. At the same time, Trump’s close ties to Oracle chief executive Larry Ellison have drawn criticism from Democrats.

Senator Elizabeth Warren has been among the most vocal opponents, saying: “Trump wants to hand over even more control of what you watch to his billionaire buddies. Americans deserve to know if the president struck another backdoor deal for this billionaire takeover of TikTok.”

Trump previously said high-profile investors, including Michael Dell and Rupert Murdoch, could be involved, though there are no reports about who ultimately joined the final deal.

This agreement ends the immediate threat of a ban, but not the argument around influence and control. 

In its preliminary findings released on Friday, the Commission said Facebook, Instagram, and TikTok may have placed “burdensome procedures and tools” that make it difficult for independent researchers to examine how these platforms influence public life, health, and safety. 

It described such access as “an essential transparency obligation under the DSA, as it provides public scrutiny into the potential impact of platforms on our physical and mental health.”

Meta and TikTok both denied wrongdoing; a Meta spokesperson told Reuters, “We have introduced changes to our content reporting options, appeals process, and data access tools since the DSA came into force and are confident that these solutions match what is required under the law in the EU.” 

TikTok, however, maintained that while it supports transparency, regulatory overlaps complicate compliance. “But requirements to ease data safeguards place the DSA and GDPR in direct tension,” a company spokesperson said. 

“If it is not possible to fully comply with both, we urge regulators to provide clarity on how these obligations should be reconciled.”

The DSA, which came fully into effect in August 2023, imposes strict obligations on “Very Large Online Platforms” such as Meta and TikTok. These platforms are expected to give researchers access to public data, allow users to report illegal content like hate speech or terrorism, and disclose how their algorithms make content recommendations.

The Commission said Meta’s Facebook and Instagram failed to offer a “user-friendly and easily accessible” system for flagging harmful content, including child sexual abuse and terrorist material. It also accused Meta of using “deceptive interface designs” that could confuse or discourage users from reporting such posts. 

TikTok’s data-sharing framework was similarly criticised for being unreliable and incomplete, limiting research into online harms.

If these violations are confirmed after further consultations, both companies could face fines of up to 6% of their global annual revenue, a penalty that could cost Meta more than $7 billion based on its 2024 earnings.

Despite the serious implications, the findings are preliminary. The companies have the opportunity to respond and address the breaches before any final decision is made. The Meta spokesperson added that the company would “continue to negotiate with the Commission.”

The probe forms part of the EU’s focus on Big Tech, which has already placed X (formerly Twitter), Google, YouTube, and Amazon under investigation for issues ranging from disinformation to product safety.

The decision follows cases within government circles over what they describe as a “pattern of negligence” by social media firms in responding to police requests. Communications Minister Fahmi Fadzil criticised TikTok’s response times.

“TikTok was very slow in providing information… to the point that I had to call TikTok CEO Shou Zi Chew to inform him, ‘this is a crime that’s being committed and your organisation is very slow’,” Fahmi said, warning that such behaviour would not be tolerated.

The trigger for this confrontation was a viral TikTok video in which a man falsely claimed to be a pathologist working on the investigation into the death of Zara Qairina Mahathir, a case that has attracted public attention. Authorities say TikTok’s delay in handling the matter forced the minister to personally intervene.

Top executives of TikTok are expected to appear at Malaysia’s federal police headquarters, Bukit Aman, on Thursday. The Inspector-General of Police and the Attorney-General will also attend the meeting.

Meta has not been spared as the company, which owns Facebook, Instagram, and WhatsApp, is being summoned over disturbing materials linked to paedophilia that spread across its platforms, including content uncovered during a cybercrime operation known as Operation Pedo. 

Authorities have specifically flagged an online group called Geng Budak Sekolah, which circulated indecent content targeting children.

The Malaysian government has classified several categories of online activity as harmful. These include gambling, scams, child pornography and grooming, cyberbullying, and content linked to race, religion, and royalty. Officials argue that these categories pose both social and national security risks.

Fahmi has insisted that every platform must comply with local laws and respond quickly to enforcement requests. “We see these platforms are not taking the matter seriously, so the dialogue process will continue, and we will stress that Malaysian law applies to them and they must comply. We will summon every platform,” he said.

At the Al Grand Prix Conference 2025, Fahmi also disclosed that Malaysia is considering mandatory identity verification for all online sales and advertising. The proposal is intended to limit fake accounts, deepfakes, and fraud. Singapore already enforces a similar policy, and Malaysia is positioning itself to follow that model.

The issue aligns with international trends where Governments from India to Indonesia, and even within the European Union, are tightening regulations on global tech giants, imposing fines, and in some cases threatening outright bans for non-compliance.

Neither TikTok nor Meta has issued an immediate public response to Malaysia’s latest move.

A detailed review by cybersecurity firm Surfshark reveals that five major social media platforms, Meta’s Facebook and Instagram, TikTok, LinkedIn, and X (formerly Twitter), have together gotten fines amounting to €3.9 billion. Meta alone is responsible for nearly 70% of that figure.

The most eye-opening fine came in 2022, when Instagram was ordered to pay €405 million. The offence? Automatically setting business accounts created by children to public, exposing sensitive information without consent. 

Then came another blow in late 2024, Facebook was fined €251 million following a data breach that compromised the personal data of minors. These incidents make Meta the most penalised company under the GDPR framework.

TikTok hasn’t escaped this either. Its failure to properly handle children’s data has led to three separate fines, with the most recent one issued this year. 

Together, these penalties total €890 million. The platform allowed underage accounts to default to public failed to provide privacy policies in local languages like Dutch, and permitted adults to falsely register as legal guardians, without verifying their authority to do so.

LinkedIn and X have each received single fines, €310 million and €450,000 respectively. Platforms like YouTube, Snapchat, Pinterest, Reddit, and Threads have so far avoided penalties, but experts caution that this is not necessarily evidence of full compliance.

“The current enforcement efforts by data protection authorities are rather reactive, sometimes they are non-existent at all,” said Felix Mikolasch, a data protection lawyer at NOYB, a European privacy advocacy group. 

Over one-third of all GDPR fines issued to social platforms relate specifically to mishandling children’s data.

We see that the European Union is stepping up its enforcement of GDPR rules, particularly as digital platforms increasingly target younger audiences and collect vast amounts of personal information. 

Since Surfshark’s last report in October 2023, there has been a 30% jump in the total value of fines, driven by four new cases, two linked to Meta, one to LinkedIn, and another to TikTok.

Meanwhile, here in Nigeria, social media companies including Meta and TikTok operate freely, despite evidence of similar data practices. No major fines have been announced. The Nigeria Data Protection Commission (NDPC) has opted for a softer, compliance-first approach.

“Usually, when we investigate and find a breach, if they are ready to comply with the law, what is the point of making noise?” said the NDPC’s National Commissioner, Dr. Vincent Olatunji. “It’s only when an organisation is unwilling to comply with the law that we are forced to impose sanctions.”

Dr. Olatunji added that the Commission also considers the economic impact. Penalising foreign tech companies could send the wrong signals to investors. 

That rationale might explain why, despite operating under Nigeria’s Data Protection Act, which mirrors many of GDPR’s core principles, no social media platform has yet been held publicly accountable for breaches.

This raises a fundamental question which says can a model based on dialogue and remediation work where enforcement by example has already proven effective elsewhere?

Europe’s approach is that any company that breaks the rules pays the price. Nigeria’s model, however, leans heavily on trust, hoping compliance will come without punishment. 

In its latest verdict, the Oversight Board—a body created by Meta but operating independently—accused the tech giant of making sweeping changes “hastily, in a departure from regular procedure,” without disclosing if any human rights assessments were carried out beforehand.

Meta didn’t just tweak the rules. In January, it abandoned its U.S. fact-checking initiative, relaxed enforcement on inflammatory content, and stopped proactively looking for less severe policy violations. 

This means posts that previously wouldn’t have slipped through—those that refer to gay people as mentally ill or women as mere “household objects or property”—are no longer being flagged unless users report them.

Meta said these changes were necessary. Mark Zuckerberg claimed that years of tight moderation had caused “too many mistakes and too much censorship.”

But he didn’t back that up with any data, and bodies say the timing is suspect—just before Donald Trump began another run for the presidency. The board believes the company might have prioritised politics over platform integrity.

In its ruling, the Board asked Meta to “assess whether the changes could have uneven consequences globally, especially in countries experiencing current or recent crises, such as armed conflicts.”

This has the potential to impact millions of lives across fragile regions where misinformation can escalate into violence.

Out of 11 reviewed content cases, the Board supported Meta’s decisions in some and reversed others. It upheld the choice to leave up videos involving transgender women, yet ordered removal of posts related to anti-immigration riots in the UK, citing Meta’s sluggish response to violent and hateful speech.

It also recommended removing the term “transgenderism” from its Hateful Conduct policy entirely.

The Board made 17 recommendations in total. These included stronger enforcement of harassment rules, transparency on how hateful ideologies are handled, and a clear evaluation of the new “Community Notes” feature—which now serves as the company’s main tool for correcting misinformation after ending partnerships with news organisations and independent fact-checkers.

Meta’s response? Lukewarm at best. In a generic statement, the company said it welcomed decisions “that leave up or restore content in the interest of promoting free expression,” but ignored the rulings that demanded removals.

Funding, however, is still intact. According to Oversight Board co-chair Paolo Carozza, there’s no indication that Meta intends to scale back its support.

“We have no reason to think that Meta is soured on the board or planning to make any large scale structural changes in terms of its commitment with the board,” he said.

Meta has allocated at least $35 million annually for the Board’s operations through 2027, and previous commitments—$130 million in 2019, $150 million in 2022—are locked into a trust meant to preserve independence.

But funding alone doesn’t fix the core issue. If Meta continues to make policy decisions behind closed doors and without due diligence, the risk of platform abuse comes up—and the company’s credibility shrinks.

The Board says freedom of expression can’t come at the expense of human rights, nor should corporate convenience override global safety.