The EU wants to ban social media for under-13s, but to what end?

A ban on access to social media for those under 13, private profiles for all minors, and the power for the European Commission to require providers to implement additional security measures. These are some of the key elements of the proposed EU KIDS Act presented today by the President of the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen, with the aim of “strengthening children’s digital safety across the Union”.

“Today, our children are dealing with the most sophisticated technologies ever created. Technologies that were not developed with their health in mind,” said von der Leyen, adding that the aim of the project is: “To put parents back in the driving seat, by giving them the tools to help their children navigate a safer online world”.

The proposal, which was first announced in July, forms part of the regulatory framework set out by the Digital Services Act of 2022. Its content is structured around four key points: user age limits, ‘security by design’, privacy-compliant verification systems, and the effective implementation of the measures. It is an extremely detailed framework, but one that is not immune to the critical issues associated with other cases of similar bans, ranging from the gradual removal of families’ primary educational role to the tendency to view social media as the source of all the ills of adolescence.

Von der Leyen’s proposal sets a minimum age of 13 for accessing social media via ‘parental controls’ – that is, a basic account with limited functions, accessible via the guardian’s account for no more than one hour a day – and 15 for opening one’s own profile, so as to ensure a ‘gradual approach’ to the world of social media platforms. Those under the age of 13 will be able to use specific video-sharing services with age-appropriate content, again for a maximum of one hour a day. However, the Australian case has amply demonstrated that teenagers easily circumvent these controls through the use of tools such as VPNs, fake accounts, their parents’ Face ID, etc. Whilst the document does provide for a method of identification via an official EU app (which, however, does not store sensitive data), this seems hardly credible as a ‘definitive’ solution.

As regards the other key point of the proposal – namely the concept of ‘security by design’, which has been so overused in recent times – the document sets out a series of measures for all service providers whose services are also aimed at under-18s. These include, for example, a ban on the use of addictive elements, such as reward mechanisms, push notifications during the night and the simulation of emotional relationships via AI interfaces, as well as features that encourage contact with strangers. The burden of proof is also reversed: it is up to the platforms to demonstrate that their services are secure by design and suitable for all age groups, by submitting their programme to the Commission and to an independent assessment body. The Commission may also require the implementation of additional measures.

The fundamental objection that can be raised against these complex and confusing attempts at regulation is always the same: in order to avoid falling into the ‘surveillance trap’ of social media, people are voluntarily handing over ever more personal information to the platforms themselves – and, moreover, in the name of results that are highly dubious. As the Digital Services Act demonstrates, these regulations are difficult to implement and often counterproductive from a political and economic standpoint. Heated debates are expected in the Council and Parliament over the proposal, but one might well ask: in the name of what?