Netflix’s ‘Adolescence’ and the cost of profits: Why kids online are not okay

If hard proof were needed of the digital dominance of Indian eyeballs, then the latest Ficci-EY report on media and entertainment supplied it. In 2024, it says, digital media finally displaced TV as the top revenue-generator of this industry, notching up ₹80,200 crore, almost a third of its overall pie. As estimated, over 40% of the time spent on phones in India is on social media platforms. Anecdotal evidence would suggest individuals aged under 18 are glued even harder to hand-held devices.

This, in itself, does not shock parents of teenagers. What has left many of them stunned lately, however, is the plausibility of a takeover that their first instinct is to deny: that their kids are being raised not by them, but by unseen forces online.

Also Read: Is anybody out there? The once bustling internet has been falling silent

The messenger, already shot, is now a must-watch: Adolescence. This four-part Netflix series, drawn from real cases, is about a 13-year-old boy accused of killing his female classmate. It’s an extreme case, of course, but as the story unfolds, it confronts viewers with the disturbing depths to which teen influences may have sunk. From a coded emoji labelling someone an ‘incel’ to outright misogyny arising from toxic masculinity, the series has a visceral impact.

The triumph of its narrative, brought out in the final episode, lies in the big questions it raises. To what extent are parents responsible for the acts of their children? Are algorithms shaping their values and attitudes? If so, what can we do about it?

The idea that teenagers can be kept off the internet is way too wishful. Age-gating, as Australia is trying with a law banning children under 16 from using social media, is unlikely to work. While such measures expect platforms to bar under-age access, critics argue that it only shifts the burden of vigilance onto families, which have no foolproof way of stopping teens from faking their age or using proxies to get around barriers.

Also Read: Private companies can use Aadhaar infrastructure for identity checks again

Complex mechanisms of parental approval, like Aadhaar-verified age gates, not only remain untested, they may need credible privacy assurances to succeed; for this, centrally issued age tokens could be explored that mask the identities of kids and their parents from websites.

Yet, there’s no getting away from putting the incentives at play to scrutiny.

As social media networks thrive on finely aimed advertising messages, they are driven to keep users engaged. And since that’s best done by feeding people with what interests them most, tech algorithms are often designed to do exactly that. If this sends teenagers down rabbit holes that lead to ghastly spaces, then, from a software point of view, that’s just the way it is.

Also Read: Australia’s move to keep kids off social media is worthy of emulation

As the Facebook whistleblower Frances Haugen alleged in 2021, internal studies had revealed the perils of extreme views, suicidal thoughts and much else being fanned, but the business priority seemed to be “profit over safety.” The company responded to the scandal with a mix of public denials and algo tweaks aimed at damage control. But the efficacy of its response remains in doubt—as with other players in this space.

To be sure, we cannot absolve parents of some blame for the misdeeds of their kids, nor point a finger only at online social lives. But we must reflect on the profit motive of businesses, especially where the liability of shareholders is largely limited to the money they invested. Board oversight is supposed to ensure ethics. But if power is concentrated at the top, and profit reigns, that might be wishful thinking too.

Meanwhile, the social impact of digital dominance is crying out for help.