By Matt Underwood Macron says France to fast-track social media ban for kids under 15, and it’s sparking a flurry of reactions, to say the least. It’s a move that’s clearly intended to protect children, but it’s also opening up a can of worms about privacy, control, and the very nature of the internet itself. The central idea is pretty straightforward: kids under 15 won’t be able to access platforms like TikTok, Instagram, Twitter/X, and Facebook. The goal? Shielding them from potentially harmful content and the manipulative tactics that these platforms are often accused of using.
The immediate thought that comes to mind is: what about the older crowd? Some people are even joking about extending this ban to those over 65. The underlying sentiment seems to be a frustration with social media in general. There’s a strong undercurrent of wanting to just ban these platforms outright, because of their perceived negative impact on society. The argument goes that removing these platforms entirely would immediately improve things.
There’s also a significant amount of skepticism about the mechanics of such a ban. Concerns quickly bubble to the surface about the implementation. The biggest worry is that this will lead to mandatory ID verification to access the internet. The fear is that this is a thinly veiled attempt to introduce a digital police state, where everything you do online is tracked and potentially used against you. The very real worry is that the data collected will not be used to protect citizens, but will be used against them to protect those in power.
The conversation then drifts to a comparison to the past, where the internet was a place of connection, before algorithms began to dictate what we see. Some believe social media’s decline began with the shift from chronological feeds to algorithm-driven content. The algorithms are seen as inherently manipulative, designed to maximize engagement, even at the expense of well-being. This shift, which took place in February 2011, is seen as a turning point, prioritizing profits over genuine connection.
A recurring theme is the perceived lack of accountability from the social media platforms themselves. The question is repeatedly raised: why can’t platforms be made to adhere to their own moderation and security policies? Some point out that these platforms often seem to require multiple violations before taking any action. There is a sense of frustration that the platforms are not being properly regulated to protect users, especially children.
There’s also a deep concern about the potential for censorship and control. The argument is made that this measure is simply a pretext for introducing personal verification, ultimately leading to greater government control over online activity. The fear is that this will be used to suppress dissent and silence those who disagree with the established order. This is seen by some as being similar to the way the “War on Drugs” was implemented.
The discussion then raises the question about the role of anonymity online. Many people are worried that the introduction of mandatory ID verification will destroy the safety of online anonymity. The worry is that the government will then be able to track what people are doing online. The feeling is, the very essence of open discourse will be eroded.
One key criticism is the focus on age verification as a primary tool. The concern is that parents can’t control/educate/protect their kids, therefore the government will. Then these same parents will get mad when the government steps in.
The question of whether or not to include platforms like Reddit in the ban comes up. Some people think that Reddit is just as harmful as other platforms. The response seems to be that Reddit is different because its algorithm isn’t as focused on driving outrage and attention. But the counter-argument is that Reddit is just as gross, contributing to the problem through the content it serves.
Another suggestion is to ban all algorithm-driven media. The belief is that these algorithms are manipulative and need to be banned until they can prove they can protect society. Some point out that there are already regulations for things like smoking and gambling, but social media gets a free pass. The question is why?
There’s also some interesting historical perspective. Some people recall the days of the early internet, before algorithms, when platforms like ICQ reigned supreme. This era is viewed nostalgically as the peak of the internet.
One point that should be kept in mind is the impact of social media on political participation. The claim is made that it is better to be active in the real world than to pretend on social media.
For anyone who is scared, it is important to point out that these rules are already in effect in places like Australia. Based on reports, you may not even have to provide your ID. In the end, this is a discussion about how to look after children. They are already kept from doing many things. But, in the end, it is regulation, not censorship.