The Global Push to Ban Children from Social Media
Over the past year, more than two dozen nations have introduced proposals to restrict social media access for significant portions of their populations. These measures, frequently promoted under the banner of "child safety", are accelerating a trend toward mass surveillance and widespread censorship, contributing to what experts term a "global free speech recession".
International Adoption of Restrictive Laws
Australia set a precedent last year by becoming the first country to prohibit anyone under the age of 16 from using social media platforms. This action has inspired a wave of similar initiatives globally. In Europe, Germany's ruling party has endorsed a social media ban, while French President Emmanuel Macron has advocated for restrictions on users under 15. In the United Kingdom, Labour leader Keir Starmer has pursued comprehensive social media bans. Additionally, countries such as Greece, the Philippines, Indonesia, Malaysia, Singapore, and Japan are advancing online identity verification laws.
In the United States, age verification legislation has been enacted or is under consideration in more than half of the states. A package of 19 "child safety" bills, several mandating identity verification for social media, is poised to progress in the House of Representatives. Major technology firms like Meta, Google, and Discord have begun preemptively complying with these regulations to stay ahead of the curve.
Ineffectiveness and Hidden Dangers
While social media bans may appear to be a cautious step to safeguard children, they are not only ineffective but also pose risks to both minors and adults. Evidence linking social media to a widespread mental health crisis among youth is scant; studies often indicate the contrary. Eliminating online anonymity, an inevitable outcome when tech companies must identify and block children, facilitates easier government tracking and censorship of journalists, activists, and whistleblowers who depend on anonymous platforms.
Furthermore, although some argue these laws could curb big tech's influence, only the largest corporations possess the resources to manage the high costs of age verification systems. Non-profit and independent platforms may be compelled to shut down, thereby consolidating the power of tech giants. Once established, mass surveillance infrastructures could be readily exploited by governments and malicious actors.
The Flawed Nature of Age Verification Technology
Implementing social media bans necessitates some form of age verification, which inherently expands surveillance technology. Since algorithmic systems cannot accurately estimate age, verifying a user's age requires collecting highly sensitive data or government documents to corroborate biometric information. The proposed laws often lack specifics on the systems to be used, raising significant privacy and safety concerns across all potential methods.
The fundamental issue with technological "age verification" is its non-existence. Humans do not age linearly, and no physiological change occurs on one's 16th or 18th birthday that would enable AI to precisely determine age, especially during puberty. Consequently, systems relying on biometric data must also demand government IDs or other personal information to link online profiles to offline identities, confirming age.
This approach not only allows big tech companies to harvest more intimate data on children but also creates substantial cybersecurity vulnerabilities. Data collected by identity verification systems is not secure; for instance, Discord experienced a major breach of age verification information last October. Recent research has also revealed connections between its age verification software and investors associated with U.S. government surveillance efforts.
Political Motivations and Broader Implications
These laws are underpinned by reactionary political movements. In the U.S., groups like the Heritage Foundation, which orchestrated Project 2025, and the National Center on Sexual Exploitation (NCOSE), a far-right organization with religious ties, have been instrumental in lobbying for age verification. The timing coincides with broader crackdowns on free expression, such as those seen under the Trump administration, including attacks on anonymous speech online and responses to student protests over issues like Gaza and immigration.
In the UK, successive governments have shown eagerness to suppress protests, often involving youth, related to the climate crisis and Gaza. Ari Cohn, lead counsel for tech policy at the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (Fire), noted that Germany's push for age limitations followed police investigations into individuals who insulted Chancellor Friedrich Merz on Facebook. "All lawmakers will claim that they are enacting age verification to protect youth from some harm, but they fail to mention the convenient power it hands to government to control and chill speech they oppose, and even punish their critics," Cohn stated.
Alternative Solutions and the Path Forward
Instead of addressing the root causes of youth distress, politicians globally seem intent on exploiting their struggles to enact laws that strip rights from both young and old. Protecting children from online harms is a commendable objective, but bans reliant on age verification are not the solution. Effective measures could include:
- Comprehensive data-privacy reforms and enhanced consumer protections.
- Actions to dismantle big tech monopolies and prosecute anti-competitive behavior.
- Broader social and economic policies that genuinely improve children's lives.
Social media serves as a vital lifeline, particularly for marginalized groups like LGBTQ+ teens. Any policies limiting online access should prioritize the most vulnerable individuals. Failure to do so could transform the internet from a realm of free expression into a fully surveilled digital panopticon, where every online action is tied to a government ID. History shows that such surveillance infrastructures are prone to abuse, underscoring the urgent need to resist these laws and preserve a free and open internet.
