Britain's decision to ban social media platforms for children under the age of 16 should prompt something long overdue in Malta: an honest conversation about childhood, technology and society's role in protecting children from harm.

An eight-month-old child cannot speak, read or understand the world around them. Yet many can already swipe a screen before they can walk.

That reality sits at the heart of Britain's decision and raises a question Malta can no longer ignore: are we doing enough to protect children in an online world designed to capture and hold their attention?

Britain is not alone. Australia has already introduced a ban, while Canada, Brazil and Indonesia have announced age-based restrictions or requirements.

Whether one agrees with these policies or not, they stem from a shared concern: children are growing up in a digital environment evolving faster than our understanding of its long-term effects.

The first years of life are critical to brain development. During this period, children learn through play, conversation, movement, exploration and human connection.

The architecture of the brain is being built, laying foundations that influence attention, emotional regulation, communication and behaviour for years to come.

Yet screens are increasingly becoming a constant presence during these formative years.

Many parents and educators have noticed the consequences: children who struggle to sit through a short story, who become distressed when a device is taken away, and who have grown accustomed to instant stimulation and constant entertainment.

Technology is not solely to blame, nor should parents be. Parenting has become more challenging in an age where screens are everywhere, and digital devices are designed to be as engaging as possible. Most parents are doing their best in circumstances previous generations never had to navigate.

However, that does not mean we should ignore what is happening.

Social media platforms are not passive tools. They are built around algorithms designed to maximise engagement and keep users online for as long as possible.

Adults often struggle to resist those mechanisms. It is therefore reasonable to question whether children, whose judgement and self-control are still developing, should be expected to do so.

Perhaps the most troubling aspect of this debate is how differently we treat children online compared to the real world.

No parent would willingly allow their child to walk into a room filled with strangers. Nor would we allow children unrestricted access to environments designed to keep them engaged for hours without supervision.

Yet this is, in many respects, what happens online.

Children are routinely allowed into digital spaces that we would never permit them to enter if they existed in the physical world.

We expect them to navigate risks that many adults struggle to manage themselves. If we would not accept these conditions in real life, why accept them online?

This is where the debate becomes uncomfortable. Many people instinctively reject government intervention, arguing that parents, not politicians, should decide how their children are raised. There is merit in that argument.

Yet society already accepts that safeguards are necessary when it comes to children. We impose age limits on alcohol, tobacco and gambling. We require seatbelts and child safety measures. The disagreement lies in where the line should be drawn.

Perhaps that line should not be a complete social media ban. Perhaps it should focus on stronger age verification, stricter safeguards and limits on algorithms targeting minors.

What is becoming increasingly difficult to defend, however, is the idea that no action is needed.

Malta should not rush to copy Britain's legislation. Equally, it should not dismiss the debate out of hand.

Parents should remain central to decisions about their children, but society also has a responsibility to protect children when the risks become too great to ignore.

The challenge is finding where that balance lies. The bigger mistake would be refusing to have that conversation at all.