In Spain, the Parliament is processing a limit on social networks for minors under sixteen. The European Commission presented proposals yesterday, Thursday, on the matter. The Australian system, a pioneer among Western countries, does not seem to work. There is little doubt that these networks can be harmful to young users (and to adults as well), as numerous scientific studies report. The problem has become more pressing with artificial intelligences, which promote an even stronger emotional dependency, a genuine addiction. Either way, these prohibitions, which, of course, big platforms oppose for being “invasive,” do not appear to be effective. We need to think of something else.
Social networks are not the sole cause of the distress of adolescents (or of the results in Spain and other wealthy countries of the latest PISA survey), although they have a huge potential to worsen it. After the destruction of other spaces, of the “town squares,” networks allow young people to socialize and generate a sense of community, to communicate, to learn. Yet, in trying to achieve the opposite, they contribute to their growing loneliness. But preventing their access to online spaces could make things worse.
“These prohibitions, which, of course, large platforms reject as «invasive», do not seem to be going to work. We need to think of something else”
The experience. Australia has been the first Western country to implement such a prohibition. Australian researchers surveyed more than four hundred adolescents before the law and three months after its entry into force last December. Their conclusion is that there is not enough evidence that the rule has had substantial effects, at least in the short term. Among 12-13-year-olds, there were barely any changes in network usage; among 14-15-year-olds, a slight decrease, and among 16 or older, it had increased. The adolescents quickly learned to circumvent the imposed measures in various ways, whether due to the ineffectiveness of age verification, access through VPNs that bypass the controls, the ease of impersonating identities, or the opening of accounts with adult data, often with the cooperation of parents or older siblings. In light of the failures, Australia has introduced new restrictions that emphasize that legal responsibility lies with the designated platforms.
The reality is changing rapidly. In the cases that are taking shape, prohibitions refer to specific platforms, but exclude others, such as WhatsApp, where young people can interact with strangers. Some, like YouTube, have educational potential. Moreover, as Wired notes, a regulation based on a list of apps seems doomed to become obsolete quickly. And for a little over two years now, there is a new disruptive factor, generative artificial intelligences, to which many young people (and adults) have become hooked. The capabilities of AI are growing faster than the systems that can control it.
“Their conclusion is that there is not enough evidence that the rule has had substantial effects, at least in the short term”
The attempts at prohibition bear some relation to the apps developed in Europe (France had its own, with a different system) during the COVID pandemic. In Spain, Radar COVID. Although it had the support of many technologists, it failed due to the resistance of potential users. With the issue of adolescents, one must also consider the technical solution — which is not usually in the legal texts — and see if it works.
Differences among adolescents. It is necessary to improve the gradations. One measure for twelve- and thirteen-year-olds (and even younger) will not serve for fifteen-year-olds. The United Kingdom plans to introduce next spring a midnight curfew on social networks for sixteen- and seventeen-year-olds (which they can opt out of if they wish). It is also necessary to think about the interests behind it. Adolescence began to wield immense economic power, at least in the Western world, in the fifties, with a subsequent explosion in the era of social networks. In recent times, it is childhood that has grown as a consumer object, and commercial interests reach them through the social networks used by their parents and grandparents.
The protection of adults. Forcing teenagers to identify themselves more strictly than a simple yes or no, even if it is by age, forces adults to do so as well. This can run counter to privacy and the right to intimacy (to the extent that there is any left). There are no reliable systems. Trust issues among users arise. Verification processes are increasingly being attacked by hackers who seize the data. A high-profile case could spell the end of these processes.
“Forcing teenagers to identify themselves more strictly than a simple yes or no, even if it is by age, also forces adults to do so”
The restrictions can raise privacy and intimate life concerns of constitutional order. The French Constitutional Council has suspended the French regulation, approved in July and one of President Macron’s flagship projects in his final term, which would have forced all users to confirm their age to access social networks from 2027. It argues that it constitutes a “disproportionate violation of freedom of expression.” It has noted that although protecting the best interests of minors (fifteen-year-olds in the French case) could justify restricting access to social networks, “the challenged provisions […] did not offer sufficient legal guarantees to ensure the right to respect for private life”. The Government will seek other formulas. That law did not specify a concrete technical mechanism.
National, European, or Chinese solution? The European Union has not yet found a common rule. The European Parliament approved last year a recommendation to set the minimum common age for accessing social networks and AI assistants at sixteen, with parental consent possible between thirteen and sixteen. The European Commission, after two years investigating whether Meta’s “addictive design” (Facebook/Instagram) violates the Digital Services Act, proposes in a new “Kids Law” to establish a tiered system for access to social networks and AI assistants. Almost total prohibition before thirteen, parental supervision, only child-friendly pages and no more than one hour per day until fifteen, plus controls for online video games with addictive features, and also requiring companies to remove addictiveness from their designs (how to ask a pyro to put out the fires?). The proposal requires that social networks and video-sharing platforms have effective age-verification technology to check user age. There is currently no such technology, and it raises the issues already noted. The proposal reverses the burden of proof: very large online platforms will be responsible for demonstrating that their services are “safe by design.” And then, why not demand the removal of addictiveness also for networks and AI for adults?
China does not prohibit access, but sets staggered time limits by age, managed through a “minor mode” on devices and apps. Under-16s: a recommended maximum of 60 minutes daily; 16- and 17-year-olds: 2 hours daily. All with a nighttime restriction, though parents can modify these limits. There is a precedent with video games: minors under 18 can only play online for a maximum of three hours per week, distributed across Friday, Saturday, Sunday, and holidays, with mandatory real-identity verification (yes, China!) to prevent the use of false profiles to bypass the restriction. Moreover, as President Macron has criticized, TikTok has a version for Chinese youths that is essentially educational, as opposed to the dissipative version the company offers in the West.
New problems arising from the prohibition. The prohibition of networks may not only fail to solve existing problems but may generate new ones, such as pushing teenagers into darker, even less regulated and controlled, areas of the Net.
“A network ban may not only fail to resolve existing problems, but create new ones”
So what then? Defeatism? No. This is a question that requires the collaboration of governments, technology companies, educators, families (which must be trained, which implies investment in that training), and the adolescents themselves. That children see their parents perched on their endless scrolls is not exemplary; it is the opposite. Addiction affects both adolescents and their elders. Platforms employ neuroscientists, psychologists, sociologists, and other experts to support their addictive designs. With prohibition, instead of pursuing the platforms, the victims are punished, expelled from spaces where they can cultivate friendships or share youth culture, critic Candice Odgers, expert in technology and adolescence. Building safe spaces on the Web or on networks for all adolescents is another complementary approach. Limiting or partially restricting mobile use (at least starting from fifteen years old) could be more effective. Movements proposing this exist, such as Free Mobile Adolescence, born in Barcelona and present in several other countries.
Holding networks accountable. Above all, responsibilities must be clarified. The so-called platforms achieved near-total immunity when, under pressure, Section 230 of the United States’ Communications Decency Act (CDA) of 1996 gave broad immunity from lawsuits based on third-party content appearing online. Google, Meta, X, etc., are not legally treated as “editors” of content. Without descending into the absurd idea that mail services should be responsible for the content of letters, this practice must be repealed. Platforms should be far more responsible for what they host and for their designs. Voluntary measures are not enough. Meta, for example, has detectors of abusive ads, but fails.
“The limitation or partial prohibition of mobile use (at least starting from fifteen years old) could be more effective”
In fact, there may be a shift underway with the advent of artificial intelligences. The lawsuit against Instagram and Facebook (Meta) for health damage to youths caused by (hidden) designs to foster addiction, with lawyers representing twenty-nine states in a court in Oakland, California, has ended in a settlement that could set a precedent and open new avenues, not only because of its monetary implications (up to $18 billion over ten years), but also because of the commitment to introduce predetermined daily time limits on social networks, a nighttime lock that only parents can deactivate, enhanced parental supervision tools, strict age-verification measures, and an independent auditor to monitor compliance. Yet Meta — which has other lawsuits pending — has not admitted fault or any wrongdoing. At the same time, lawsuits relating to youth suicides connected to their interactions with AI are increasing. New possibilities are opening. Will they arrive in time?
