There is a security emergency in the digital world

Things our children may have seen online over the past year: the live-streamed suicide of a twenty-year-old; a school massacre carried out by a man armed with a submachine gun; a group of followers inciting a seventeen-year-old girl to take her own life by harassing her with doctored screenshots; mass bullying of children or teenagers who are too fat, too strange or too isolated. And more: pornographic images from one of the hundreds of platforms that circumvent regulations banning access to minors, the glorification of rape, videos of students attacking teachers with thousands of ‘likes’, potentially lethal challenges that are highly likely to be copied, such as lying on a plank of wood on railway tracks or ‘train surfing’ – that is, travelling whilst clinging to the outside of a bus or train – eating or fasting challenges, and content promoting anorexia, including strategies for tricking the body into not feeling hungry and hiding one’s wasting away from family and friends.

The list could go on. In my view, the government’s next initiative on security – immediately following the decree against youth gangs – should be dedicated to this emergency, which is real, substantial and dramatic for thousands of families and teachers: the ‘malaeducation’ of these platforms undermines, day after day, the educational efforts of those who are still trying: families, schools and institutions, with their commitment to teaching and values. Flash Eurobarometer 579, conducted between 30 March and 16 April 2026 amongst 26,297 European adolescents aged between 13 and 18 and 12,750 parents across all 27 Member States, documents the relationship between screen time, social media use and the consequences for children’s mental health. European teenagers spend an average of 4.5 hours a day in front of a screen on school days and 6.1 hours at weekends. Fourteen per cent exceed 10 hours a day, which is more than half of their waking hours. Those who started using social media before the age of 10 spend 7.5 hours on weekends, compared with 5.7 hours for those who started after the age of 14. Even in quantitative terms, personal development through social media equals or exceeds that gained in the classroom or through interaction with parents.

The centre-right, which has made security its flagship issue, can and must extend this concept beyond the boundaries of traditional areas of intervention. The digital world is no longer ‘something separate from us’; it is something that intersects with real life – what happens on the streets, in towns and cities, and within families. And the responsibility for mitigating its negative effects can no longer be shifted onto parents. A few days ago, Ursula von der Leyen explained this principle using an industrial analogy: in Europe, whoever develops a product is responsible for its safety. Car manufacturers must ensure their vehicles are safe: we do not expect children to design their own seatbelts, nor do we expect parents to fit airbags. The same must apply to big tech companies.

Personally, I agree with this approach and, in fact, I have tabled a bill along these lines, which has also been finalised in consultation with representatives of the main platforms. I have initiated discussions with my colleagues in the majority, and found them all in agreement on the three key principles identified, which are also in line with the guidelines set out by the European Union.

Firstly, a ‘watertight’ age verification system for registering on social media platforms, using systems similar to SPID or the European app which will soon allow users to verify their age without sharing personal data. Secondly, a ban on access to the platforms for children under 13, and restricted, ‘protected’ access for those aged between 13 and 16. Thirdly, changes to the algorithms that create addiction.

My proposal is far removed from any ‘prohibitionist’ mindset. I am convinced that, for platforms too, the issue of minors is a challenge that must be addressed: becoming ‘enemies’ of families and teachers is not in their interests. Their reputation hinges on this commitment. In the United States, thousands of personal injury lawsuits have already been filed. The test case, brought by a girl who had started using YouTube at the age of six and Instagram at nine and had become addicted to them, resulted in the platforms being found liable and ordered to pay a massive compensation sum: 6 million dollars. On the other hand, we have been protecting minors from dangerous substances ever since civilisation began. We forbid them from buying alcohol or cigarettes. We forbid them from driving cars or motorbikes before a certain age. We forbid them, on the initiative of local mayors, from entering certain venues or events at night. No one finds anything strange about this. And liberal culture itself has never questioned the need for specific ‘educational safeguards’ for minors; on the contrary: it was the fourth Berlusconi government that established, on my initiative, the Ombudsman for Children, with the aim of exercising specific oversight over the respect for the rights of children and adolescents.

From today, there is yet another reason to revive the idea of legislative action on this matter before the end of the parliamentary term. Von der Leyen has announced a European proposal for the autumn, outlining its main guidelines, which coincide with those of the bill I tabled. Italy could be the first country to pass not a symbolic measure but a clear, effective law that is in line with the new European approach to this issue. The “Child Safety Online” report, presented in Brussels and covering the world of social media platforms, video-sharing sites, online video games, app stores and even AI systems, proposes age-based measures. For children under the age of 3, it recommends avoiding screens and social media. For children aged between 3 and 13, access should be limited and permitted only under specific conditions. For those aged between 13 and 18, the criterion would be the provision of safe environments by default, free from features considered most problematic in terms of compulsive use (such as infinite scrolling), exposure to harmful content and unwanted contact. The most significant recommendation is the reversal of the burden of proof. It should not be up to families or regulators to investigate the damage after the event. It must be up to digital service providers to demonstrate that their environments are safe and age-appropriate before they can reach children. The report states this explicitly: until platforms demonstrate that their services are safe by design, access by children under the age of 13 to social media and other digital services in the EU should be restricted.

This is precisely the spirit (and the letter) of the proposal I put forward, and I would like to take this opportunity, courtesy of "Il Foglio", to say to my colleagues in the majority: we can be at the forefront on this issue, as on many others. We can bring a serious bill before Parliament before the end of the parliamentary term, one that addresses the widespread concerns of families. A Eurobarometer survey conducted between February and March 2026 confirms significant public concern about online dangers (cyberbullying, harmful content and exploitation) and calls for stricter institutional action. The absolute majority of respondents want a ban or restriction. Only a meagre 13 per cent would prefer to leave management solely in the hands of parents and schools. The figures reflect phenomena that every parent is familiar with but which statistical studies have carefully quantified. Almost one in three young people say that social media makes them feel stressed, sad or socially excluded. Around a quarter of teenagers have encountered problematic content online, including hate speech (25 per cent), unsolicited violent content (19 per cent), unsolicited sexual content (18 per cent), cyberbullying or harassment (17 per cent) and pressure to share intimate images (10 per cent). The link between the length of time spent on social media and problems with sleep, difficulty concentrating and fatigue is highlighted by every source.

We can be the first to take action, the first to tackle this new “security emergency”, without waiting to have to follow in others’ footsteps. Let’s do it; let’s find a way to bring together the various proposals put forward in Parliament. Let’s provide a genuine response to families, teachers and ourselves: it is possible, it is right, and it is our duty.