Less state, more family. Social media is not treated like Maranza

Treat social media like the Maranza people – are you sure? Karin Prien is 61 years old, a German politician from the CDU, born in Amsterdam in 1965; she is a lawyer and the Federal Minister for Education, Family, the Elderly, Women and Youth in the Merz government and, unlike most of her colleagues around the world, she has a politically incorrect idea for managing the relationship between our children, our grandchildren, our boys and girls, and their social media: let’s not delude ourselves that a ban is enough. Karin Prien obviously doesn’t put it quite like that; she doesn’t say we should do nothing, but she does say she is not enthusiastic about this wave of bans that is taking over the public agendas of half the world, through which governments risk deluding themselves into thinking they can tackle a real issue: the excessive and dangerous exposure of young people to social media algorithms and the inner workings of a smartphone (last week, France became the first EU country to ban them for under-15s; the EU has promised strict regulations after the summer). 

Prien says he is well aware that screen time can have dramatic consequences for the health of children under the age of three. And he says he is well aware of the damage that prolonged exposure to social media can cause in teenagers. On the subject of schools, Prien sensibly argues that the state has a duty to push for strict limits on smartphone use, particularly in primary schools and during the early years of schooling. As for the rest, Prien has a simple idea, which only in a world gone mad might seem revolutionary: to shift the focus not only from what the state could do, but also from what families ought to do. “I urge parents to take their role as role models seriously and simply show their children how not to have their mobile phones constantly in their hands,” says Prien. He then adds: “The state can advise and support parents; it can provide them with information and guidance, but it cannot dictate how they should organise family life. In my view, every family should set its own rules, for digital media as well as other areas. Does a mobile phone really have to be on the table during meals? Do you have to reply to every message straight away? Even just the rule that smartphones must not be kept in children’s bedrooms at night can make a huge difference.” As you know, a sort of domino effect began in Australia a few months ago. In December, the Australian government became the first in the world to approve a ban on social media access for under-16s, later reinforced with new powers for the regulator and heavier penalties for platforms that fail to comply with the rules. Other countries are following this model, albeit with different approaches. In Indonesia, account suspensions and stricter measures for under-16s have been imposed. A similar approach has been announced in Malaysia. The UK, under the previous Starmer government, had announced a ban on under-16s to be implemented by 2027. In Canada, a proposal to restrict under-16s’ access to the riskiest platforms is under discussion. In Spain, the government has announced a ban on under-16s, subject to age verification. There is, in fact, one exemplary, perfect case in Europe of a country that has decided to move in the opposite direction: Estonia, the state that, more than any other, has built its identity on digital citizenship, and which has long urged caution regarding technological shortcuts, refusing to impose a general minimum age for downloading apps or accessing social media. The reasoning put forward on this issue by the Minister for Justice and Digital Affairs, Liisa Pakosta, is spot on: teenagers would simply find ways round the ban and, to stop them, the state would have to force everyone – including adults – to constantly prove their age; for this reason, we need to shift our focus by rigorously enforcing existing European regulations, intervening in algorithms and products, educating people on responsible use, and leaving it up to families to set stricter limits. Families, indeed. The German minister, for her part, does not cite the Estonian model as one to be exported; she says she wants to closely observe what is currently happening in Australia. But she also asks another question: dear friends, the problems are there, we know that, but are we sure that is really a model worth emulating? Or perhaps we need other measures to achieve our goal?

Prien’s view – that a ban on social media alone risks being merely a stopgap measure – is not an abstract notion but stems from a study submitted to the government by a commission of experts appointed by the ministry, which a few days ago presented its recommendations for the protection of children and young people on social media. The first recommendation: a minimum legal age of 13 for independent use of social media platforms such as TikTok, Instagram or Snapchat, with effective age verification and enhanced safeguards until the age of 18. For those under 13, only services that are demonstrably suitable for children and low-risk would be permitted. The second, more flexible approach does not set a single age threshold but restricts specific dangerous features: algorithmic feeds, open contact lists, live streams, autoplay, infinite scrolling and personalised advertising. At the heart of the report is the principle of ‘safe by design and by default’: it should not be up to children or parents to protect themselves; rather, platforms must offer secure default settings. Strict restrictions on private smartphones at school are also envisaged: a ban in primary schools and up to Year 7, with shared rules from Year 8 onwards. Prien therefore advocates a legal age limit for independent use of social media. But she says much more is needed. She says that Germany needs binding, effective age-verification technologies that comply with data protection legislation. She says that Germany needs severe penalties for platform operators and companies that circumvent child protection measures. She says there is a need for modern forms of media literacy, and for contemporary teaching of media and journalistic skills. The German minister’s proposal is interesting not so much for the ban – which she does not rule out – as for the food for thought it provides. The state can take action in terms of bans, but a state that truly cares about this issue must take steps to hold platforms accountable: regarding product design, age verification, algorithms, default settings, and the mechanisms that turn children’s attention into digital addiction. It must ensure that it is the platforms themselves that introduce effective safeguards, that they do everything in their power to comply with them, and, above all, it must educate families to do what we are no longer in the habit of asking of them: to look after their own children and monitor what they do with their phones, without creating a state of domestic anarchy over which no state will truly have the power or the means to intervene and remedy the situation.

The Prien case is a telling one. And it is relevant to Italy too. At present, there is no national ban on social media for minors in Italy: those under 14 require parental consent to sign up to these platforms. At present, the government and Parliament are debating various draft bills: proposals range from a ban for those under 13 or 14 to an age limit of 15, with age verification and protected profiles for teenagers. And where a cautious approach could prompt the government not to pursue national bans, but to call on Europe to address the issue by holding platforms accountable, and to tackle the problem not only through bans but also through education. Do not ask the state to do what you yourselves are unable to do. Prien has chosen to tackle the issue, whilst not closing the door on a ban. Italy could have the opportunity to fight a different battle: not to bring the state into children’s bedrooms, but to hold platforms to account, shift the debate to the European level, and remind parents, aunts, uncles and grandparents that the most important rules, when it comes to smartphones and social media, are not just those imposed by the state. They are the ones established around the dinner table, over a plate of pasta, looking your children in the eye and setting the rules for them without waiting for the state to do it for us. Rules are important, but empowering families is perhaps even more so. This applies to social media. And perhaps it applies to the Maranza people too.