For the past two decades, digitization has been practically synonymous with modernization. The priority was to connect more people, put computers in schools, replace in-person procedures with apps, and ensure that virtually any activity could be carried out on a screen. The more areas of life that incorporated technology, the greater the apparent progress. That direction, which was taken for granted for years, is now being reconsidered in very different countries.
In December 2025, Australia established a minimum age of 16 for maintaining accounts on certain social media platforms. Responsibility falls on the platforms, which must take reasonable steps to prevent anyone below that age from creating or maintaining accounts. Brazil took a different approach: since March 2026, its Digital Statute for Children and Adolescents has been in force, regulating digital services accessible to minors and establishing obligations for the companies that provide them. Rather than focusing solely on when a minor may enter, it places some responsibility on those who build the spaces they enter.
Sweden, after years of incorporating screens into education, has restored space for books and other non-digital practices. Meanwhile, Mexico will restrict the use of mobile phones during the school day in basic education from November 3, with certain exceptions.
These cases do not reflect a coordinated policy, nor is there scientific consensus on the effectiveness of all these measures. They do, however, share a question that was far less common just a few years ago: the debate is no longer only about where to introduce technology, but also where it may be better to limit it.
We can call this slowdown, accompanied by new controls, the digital (de)revolution. It does not mean reversing technological transformation or returning to an analog world. Rather, it means abandoning the automatic adoption of technology and beginning to decide where, when, and under what conditions its use makes sense. What is being reconsidered is an assumption that accompanied the first phase of digital transformation: that introducing more technology was, by definition, a form of progress. Turning restrictions into a new universal prescription would repeat the same mistake in the opposite direction.
Evidence on the effects of social media on children and adolescents illustrates the complexity of the issue. A review published this year in Frontiers in Developmental Psychology points out that bans targeting young people remain an unproven intervention. Available experimental studies on social media restrictions have not specifically examined the youth populations targeted by these new policies, and their findings have been inconsistent. The choice, therefore, is not simply whether to introduce or remove technology, but to determine where, how, and for whom it is useful.
During the first digital revolution, adaptation fell primarily to us. We learned how to use computers, open accounts, download apps, create passwords, and move everyday activities into the digital world. The new phase is beginning to partially reverse that relationship: we are also demanding that technology adapt to the needs of the people who use it.
For years, modernizing a service often meant replacing the previous system with a digital one: a service counter with an app, a menu with a QR code, or a conversation with a person with an automated system. A recent study published in Psychology & Marketing proposes the concept of digital technology captivity to describe the vulnerability that can arise when digital technology becomes the mandatory means of accessing a service and alternatives are limited. The United Kingdom has spent years implementing assisted digital policies that provide in-person, telephone, and other non-digital options for people who need support using digitized public services.
Latin America between two stages
Brazil is not an isolated case in Latin America. Colombia is debating bills that introduce minimum age requirements, age verification, and safety and design obligations for platforms. Mexico and Chile are also discussing initiatives related to minors’ access and the responsibilities of digital companies. There is no regional model, but these debates are unfolding alongside another persistent challenge: expanding internet access.
Differences in connectivity, service quality, device availability, and digital skills remain significant, particularly between urban and rural areas and across income groups. In this context, according to the Inter-American Development Bank, completing a fully digital administrative procedure takes an average of around 40 minutes, compared with approximately six hours when handled in person. At the same time, older adults, rural residents, and people with lower incomes are less likely to use digital public services. The same tool that removes a barrier for some can create one for others.
Latin America needs to bring those who remain excluded into the digital world while beginning to establish conditions for those who are already there. This reality calls for careful consideration of imported solutions. The phone that distracts a student during class may also be the only connected device available in their household. A platform that exposes them to certain risks may also give them access to information and opportunities they would be unlikely to find in their immediate surroundings. An app may save one person hours while becoming an obstacle for another.
The first digital revolution focused on the right to enter. The (de)revolution focuses on the conditions for remaining inside and the right to ensure that alternative doors remain open. Digital maturity is therefore no longer measured by how much technology we introduce or remove, but by our ability to distinguish between different uses, people, settings, and needs.
Measuring progress by the amount of technology adopted is just as inadequate as measuring educational achievement by the number of computers installed in a classroom.
Autor
Writer and consultant in political and institutional communication. He analyzes politics, society, and mobility dynamics in Latin America, with an emphasis on their institutional implications and the construction of political community.
