WANA (Feb 05) – On the streets of Tehran, when you talk to a teenager about the internet, they speak of a long list of VPNs lined up on their phone. It seems that although filtering has made access to their desired online space more difficult, it has by no means completely stopped them.

 

But this is not the whole story; the other half belongs to parents who see their child alone and defenseless in this endless ocean—sometimes even vulnerable and prey to specific groups or individuals.

 

Today, the debate over “restrictions” is no longer a purely Iranian one. When France bans social media use for those under 15, when Brazil stands up to a major platform (X) to protect its judicial sovereignty, and when Spain also prohibits access to social networks for those under 16, it shows that the world has reached the conclusion that cyberspace without a “framework” can endanger both psychological and national security.

 

 

The Global Atlas: Hard Decisions for the Collective Good

The reality is that governance in cyberspace is not always accompanied by popularity. At times, governments—much like a caring yet firm parent—are compelled to enact regulations that may not appeal to every taste, but whose aim is a greater “collective good”:

 

In the United States, when national security and the privacy of children (the COPPA law) are at stake, the authorities do not back down, even at the cost of imposing multi-billion-dollar fines and restricting popular platforms.

 

In China and Russia, the internet is viewed as a “strategic asset”; to preserve their independence against foreign influence, they have accepted the high cost of building a fully domestic ecosystem (such as Runet or the Great Firewall).

 

These countries demonstrate that, at times, in order to maintain sustainable security, one must choose “long-term societal well-being” over “absolute short-term freedom”—even if such decisions initially face resistance.

 

 

The Iranian Experience

Iran, too, has for years been pursuing its own model based on the same logic of “preserving independence.” From creating the National Information Network to ensure continuity of services during crises and international internet shutdowns, to strengthening domestic platforms such as Eitaa and Rubika.

 

However, the major challenge in Iran today emerges when these restrictions become intertwined with concepts such as “tiered” or “white” internet.

 

When restriction is perceived not as a “universal law for security,” but as “unequal access for specific groups,” it becomes a source of protest. People support tough governmental decisions when they feel that the framework is fair—not when it appears to be a tool for discrimination.

 

The Solution: The Internet as a Driver’s License

It seems that a solution capable of preserving both security and justice is “gradual maturity.” In the past, Iranian parents did not buy mobile phones for their children until the age of 18, but today, a phone has become an educational necessity. A logical solution for this age range may be the creation of “age-based SIM cards.”

An Iranian man looks at his phone on a street in Tehran, Iran, December 19, 2021. ​Majid Asgaripour/WANA (West Asia News Agency)

For Children and Teenagers (Age-Based SIM Cards): Just as a 12-year-old is not permitted to drive on the street, their access to cyberspace should also be opened gradually and in step with their cognitive development.

 

This is a form of “protective restriction” intended to safeguard their mental health. Just like driving tests, they should undergo psychological and behavioral assessments in order to advance to the next stage.

 

For Adults (Freedom Alongside the Rule of Law): In a smart architecture, an adult should not remain behind a barrier designed for a child. The correct logic is that cyberspace should be an extension of the physical world; just as a citizen is free on the street but obliged to obey the law, in cyberspace, they should also enjoy free access—on the condition that they accept legal responsibility.

 

Question: How can oversight be exercised on foreign platforms?

According to experts, one technical solution to this challenge is shifting the approach from “content control” to “gateway monitoring.” In this model, the state does not need access to foreign servers; instead, by relying on a “verified digital identity,” the user is identified at the moment of entering the international network.

 

This creates a “digital footprint” that allows authorities, in the event of a crime or an act contrary to national laws, to identify the offender by matching the technical address (IP) and the time of activity.

 

 

This is exactly like installing cameras at the entrance of a highway; the police do not necessarily see inside every vehicle, but they record the license plate of every car that enters the route so that, in case of a violation, the cost of breaking the law is increased for the individual.

 

However, it remains to be seen whether Iran is capable of implementing such a system or not.

 

Ultimately, it is undeniable that individuals—particularly teenagers—often become more driven to cross boundaries when confronted with restrictions. However, if the sense is conveyed that the system is designed for the “protection of the child” and for “responsible freedom for the adult,” resistance can give way to cooperation.

 

Iran needs a “smart architecture”; a framework in which the internet is not an exclusive privilege, but a tool through which a child receives “protection” and an adult receives a “law-based right.”

 

If an individual commits a crime in this space, they must face strict laws and legal penalties, just as in the real world, so that “rule of law” replaces “blockage.”