The government of Guyana is holding a series of consultations with communication professionals, digital creators, and social media influencers to develop a national framework for protecting children online. Officials have confirmed that no decisions on age restrictions have been finalised, and that the sessions are intended to gather a broad range of perspectives before any policy is drafted.

The consultations reflect growing concern among Guyanese authorities about the risks children face on digital platforms, including cyberbullying, grooming, exposure to harmful or violent content, online harassment, and the effects of excessive screen time on development. At the same time, officials have indicated they are conscious of not severing young people's access to educational resources, scholarship opportunities, and the broader economic possibilities that digital engagement can provide.

The divide among those consulted has been pronounced. A significant number of participants have argued in favour of a hard minimum age of 16 for access to social media platforms, citing what they describe as inherent dangers that younger children are not equipped to navigate. Proponents of this position have also pushed back against the assumption that parental supervision can serve as an adequate safeguard. Many households, they argue, face real constraints: long working hours, domestic responsibilities, and limited digital literacy among parents mean that unsupervised access is frequently the reality rather than the exception.

Others, particularly those working in the digital and creative industries, have argued that blanket prohibitions would do more harm than they prevent. Several contributors to the consultations pointed out that early engagement with online platforms has opened pathways for young Guyanese to access international networks, educational content, and career opportunities that would otherwise be unavailable. Removing that access, they contend, risks widening an existing inequality between those with offline support structures and those without.

Industry professionals have also raised practical objections. Strict bans, they warned, have a documented tendency to push usage underground. Rather than abandoning platforms, children often find workarounds, creating accounts with false ages or using devices outside the home. This, several participants noted, makes monitoring more difficult and leaves children with less protection than they might have had under a more permissive but structured system. Some suggested Guyana would be better served by studying tiered access models currently under development in the United Kingdom, the European Union, and India, where age-appropriate design standards and graduated permissions are being explored as alternatives to outright prohibition.

A number of parents and community figures who participated in the consultations advocated for approaches grounded in the home rather than imposed by the state. Open conversations between parents and children about grooming, consent, and digital safety, they argued, build more durable protection than platform-level blocks. Several proposals centred on a supervised access model for children aged 13 to 15, in which parental consent would be required and activity could be monitored without full restriction.

Other recommendations put forward by participants included the development of locally produced, culturally relevant digital content aimed at younger children, improved digital literacy programmes directed at parents rather than children alone, and enforceable daily limits on screen time to encourage physical activity and face-to-face socialisation. The breadth of these suggestions reflects the absence of consensus, with participants drawing on very different assumptions about where responsibility for child safety online should ultimately sit: with the state, with platforms, with parents, or some combination of the three.

Government officials have said that all contributions made during the consultation process will be reviewed and that the findings will be used to inform a final child protection framework. No timeline for that process has been announced.

‍