For two weeks, three grandchildren, ranging from 8th grade to university students, stayed locked in their room, air conditioning on, glued to their phones. Some days, Hanh had to call them several times before they would come out to eat. Invitations to the park or for sports were flatly refused. "My own child, only in 3rd grade, is copying their older cousins, grabbing a phone to watch videos and play games at every opportunity," Hanh said.

Many parents report struggling with their children's dependence on digital devices. Last week, Bich Ngoc in Hung Yen opened her daughter's room to find the 14-year-old filming herself dancing to a social media video with her phone propped against a mirror. Ngoc had warned her daughter multiple times about posting videos, so witnessing it firsthand prompted her to snatch the phone and smash it on the floor.

In Ho Chi Minh City, The Hung also broke a tablet after discovering his 13-year-old son browsing online under a blanket at 2 am.

Banning children from commenting, liking, or sharing on social media may lead to passive video consumption, harming mental health. Photo illustration: Pexels

The battle against screens within families has become a global issue, compelling governments worldwide to intervene. Australia will ban social media use for those under 16 from late 2025. Malaysia will implement similar regulations from 6/2026, while France passed a law restricting those under 15 in late july. Numerous US states have filed lawsuits against tech giants like Meta and TikTok, citing addictive features, particularly for children and adolescents.

Vietnam is also progressively tightening the management of children's online activities. From late 2024, platforms must verify accounts using phone numbers; children under 16 can only register accounts through a guardian. Recently, a draft decree on internet use proposed reducing daily game time for children under 16 to a maximum of 60 minutes (down from the current 180 minutes). It also suggested that this age group should not be allowed to post, comment, or share on social media. The policy aims to protect personal information, prevent fraud, cyberbullying, and reduce stimulation from virtual interactions.

However, a gap remains between policy objectives and family realities. Doctor Gordon Ingram, a senior lecturer at RMIT Vietnam, stated that completely cutting off online interaction rights while still allowing passive browsing could create dangerous psychological consequences.

"Merely passive browsing is like constantly channel surfing, which is both a waste of time and can lead children to a state of frustration and irritability," Ingram analyzed. When faced with rigid prohibitions, children may falsify their age or join private groups, circumventing default protection mechanisms.

Nguyen Thi Tham, a lecturer in professional communication at RMIT, shares this view, asserting that parents' true "opponent" is not the phone itself, but the "attention economy" model of platforms. Personalized algorithms and short, rapidly-changing videos are designed to stimulate dopamine, fostering dependence. "Because their brains are still developing, children's self-control is limited. Continuous exposure to short-term stimuli makes it difficult for children to concentrate on their studies," Tham noted.

Current censorship mechanisms primarily address content after it is posted, while AI struggles to recognize the context of sophisticated harmful videos. Therefore, no age is absolutely safe, and simple bans do not help children build digital "immunity."

To address the issue comprehensively, experts suggest combining technical safeguards (such as default private accounts, blocking messages from strangers, AI to detect grooming) with parental involvement. Drawing from Australia's experience, Doctor Ingram emphasized the need to enable adolescents to voice their opinions on regulations that directly impact their digital lives.

Instead of impulsive reactions, parental persistence yields more sustainable results. Manh Tuan, 45 years old, in Ha Noi, once faced a situation where his two sons, 12 and 15 years old, played games until midnight. He did not scold them but held a family meeting, giving them one week of unrestricted use before implementing new rules. Afterward, he collected their phones, allowing only 30 minutes for research under supervision. He assigned household chores and played sports with his children. On weekends, the children had one hour of game time.

"At this age, prohibitions are difficult. I had to be strict and dedicate significant time to my children to guide their behavior," Tuan said.

According to experts, adults must lead by example by actively putting down their phones and engaging in direct conversation, so children learn the value of real-life interactions. Children also need to be taught emotional regulation skills and privacy protection before joining social media.

Phan Duong