By John Q. Hosedrinker 
The European Parliament has passed a resolution advocating for a ban on social media use for children under 16, with parental consent being an exception. This non-binding resolution aims to address growing concerns about the potential mental health risks associated with unrestricted internet access for minors. The European Commission is currently evaluating Australia’s similar ban, and a panel of experts is expected to advise on the best approach to protect children online. The resolution also calls for the disabling of addictive features on internet platforms used by minors, such as infinite scrolling and excessive notifications.
Read the original article here
European parliament calls for social media ban on under-16s, and it’s certainly stirring up a lot of thoughts. The idea itself, protecting younger teens from the potential downsides of social media, seems to resonate with many. Concerns range from the impact on mental health to the loss of focus on studies, and there’s a general feeling that maybe, just maybe, kids are spending a bit too much time online, missing out on crucial development in the “real” world. Some people are even going so far as to say that social media can turn young people into “mindless zombies.” The sentiment is: let’s not make this world even crazier.
However, the implementation of such a ban is where the real debate kicks in. Many people immediately raise red flags about the practicalities. Enforcing a ban requires some form of verification, and that’s where the problems begin. To verify age, it appears that the plan is to ask for some kind of ID. The concern is that this could be a slippery slope toward widespread surveillance and the erosion of online anonymity. Some people see this as a pretext for the government to card everyone and control who accesses what. The move could become a data breach disaster waiting to happen. What’s worse, there are worries that it could be used by authoritarian governments and criminals.
Instead of a ban, some people propose a different approach: regulation. Instead of simply blocking access for younger teens, why not regulate social media platforms more effectively? This way, the platforms themselves are held responsible for the content they host. There’s a general sense that tech companies, like Facebook or X, should be held accountable for the existing rules and regulations, rather than simply letting them off the hook with a ban. Instead of controlling what kids can do, it would be better to teach them how to do it safely.
There are also concerns about what a ban would actually achieve. Would it solve the core issues? Some people argue that it might just push teens towards less regulated corners of the internet, where they could encounter even more dangerous content. Others believe that it would also be a massive blow to freedom and free expression. If you can’t say anything about your opinion, how can you develop it?
Then there’s the question of the age itself. Why 16 and not 18? The age of majority for many things. There are concerns that banning someone from social media at 16, just to suddenly give them full access at 18, would be a jarring transition. Is it fair to introduce someone to the dangers of social media without any prior experience or preparation?
One recurring theme is the perceived hypocrisy of the situation. Some feel the focus should be on cracking down on disinformation, deepfakes, and AI manipulation, rather than banning kids from the internet. They point out that social media can be a powerful tool for good, connecting people and raising awareness about important issues. Social media also makes it easier to verify content, so it might be better to address the harmful content itself.
Beyond the immediate concerns, there’s a wider unease about the direction of society. Some people see the ban as part of a trend toward over-regulation and a loss of personal freedoms. They feel that the EU is copying the worst aspects of authoritarian policies. The fear is that the European parliament is prioritizing control and surveillance over the well-being of its citizens, especially their children.
There’s also a more philosophical debate about the value of information and the nature of capitalism. One argument goes that restricting access to information, especially for young people, could be detrimental to their future. People are born free and equal, what gives someone the right to decide what another person can and cannot do? It questions whether it’s beneficial to limit the amount of information available to them.
Ultimately, the European parliament’s proposed social media ban on under-16s is a complex issue with no easy answers. While the intention to protect young people is understandable, the proposed implementation raises serious questions about privacy, freedom, and the overall direction of society.