So, What Is a Plan?

"Whether it’s an outright ban or applying film-style age ratings to social media, these proposals would still require widespread age verification. Platforms would have no way to enforce age-based access without forcing users to prove their age."

"This is one of those policies that crumbles when it touches the real world. In reality, there is no such thing as a social media ban for under 16s. There are only digital ID checks for every single one of us."

"Public support for 'protect kids from harm' is not the same as public support for 'every Canadian must submit ID to a third-party provider in order to use the internet,' and politicians are conflating the two."

"When age-staggered access restrictions to services or content are introduced, so-called age-control technologies are required. These are necessary to determine the age of users, but they themselves carry risks – and indeed for everyone who wishes to use such services. These risks affect above all privacy, but also discrimination, possibilities of misuse and dependencies on tech companies. At the same time, no age-control technology is absolutely impossible to circumvent. [translated from German]"

"Having to provide ID or a biometric face scan to access a VPN utterly defeats the point of a technology designed to enhance privacy online. The ability to receive and share information absent state snooping is a vital part of living in a free democracy. Having to provide ID or a biometric face scan to access a VPN utterly defeats the point of a technology designed to enhance privacy online. The ability to receive and share information absent state snooping is a vital part of living in a free democracy. (...) The ability of adults and children to enjoy the enhanced privacy provided by VPNs is a sign of a healthy liberal democracy."

"Our skepticism is further deepened by recent reports that cybersecurity experts have found multiple security flaws and technical shortcomings in the Commission's app. From a state perspective, such vulnerabilities are a red flag and further reduce the already unlikely prospect of Estonia adopting a similar solution for its citizens, as ensuring privacy and data protection must remain an absolute priority."

"The UK’s scramble to find an effective age verification method shows us that there isn't one (...)."

"Whatever regulations are adopted, it is essential to avoid inadvertently causing further harms. For example, age verification done wrong can both fail at its goal and endanger the privacy of both kids and adults.Whatever regulations are adopted, it is essential to avoid inadvertently causing further harms. For example, age verification done wrong can both fail at its goal and endanger the privacy of both kids and adults."

"These policy proposals risk shutting down smaller Open Source projects that exist for the benefit of all by creating a legal and technical environment that is so complex that only the large, proprietary vendors with significant resources can participate. And because Open Source code is present in 98% of codebases, policies that make it harder for these projects to operate will have ripple effects throughout technology that are not well understood."

"We cannot underestimate the damage that ID demands and the death of anonymity online would have on our culture. The ability for people to speak frankly about uncomfortable and controversial issues freely online, especially during this time of culture wars and witch hunts, has allowed people to speak freely without risking their jobs or real life social circles."

"Online threats to children are real, but the headlong pursuit of age verification that we’re seeing around the world is unacceptable in its approach and far too broad in scope — and we simply can’t afford to get this wrong."

"Protecting children online should not mean building a surveillance infrastructure for everyone. We need regulation that puts users back in control, not policies that force people to trade their privacy and voice for access to modern life."

"(...) the age assurance compliance paradox is unavoidable: the Commonwealth of Australia's Age assurance technology trial confirmed that every available method carries measurable error, and requires either government identity documents or biometric data from every user. Children's data is therefore processed more intensively, not less, which inverts the protective logic (...)."

"The technical infrastructure required to verify user ages on every AI-enabled service in a privacy-protective manner does not yet exist, and neither does the privacy law framework needed to govern the verification data such infrastructure would generate."

"Policies to protect children are also contentious because, to know who is a child, platforms must subject all internet users to age assurance (the umbrella term for age verification, typically based on hard proof of legal identity, or 'softer' forms of age estimation, facial recognition or self-declaration of age). While age assurance technologies are improving, they rely on personal data, so they may infringe privacy, wrongly exclude certain groups or lead providers to withdraw services from children."

"Procedures in which sensitive data leave end devices, in particular age estimation by platform providers, are to be rejected due to the massive violations of the privacy of all users. [translated from German]"

"The Online Safety Act, passed in 2023, has fuelled the use of age verification to allow adults to access content that might be unsuitable for children. Age Verification remains improperly regulated and largely US processed. Even the poster child of 'doing it right', Yoti, has been fined by the Spanish data protection authorities and criticised by privacy researchers."

"(...) such bans have been promoted despite no evidence they might work, and increasing evidence from Australia that its ban is failing. If governments are going to lurch into clumsy and free-speech harming government surveillance of the internet, we’d hope they’d at least objectively analyze whether this is likely to be successful."

"It’s a Trojan horse for more surveillance and censorship online from a political class that has never known quite what to do with the incredible freedom that the internet gives all of us. For nanny statists, digital freedom is a problem to be solved, not a responsibility to be learned."

"In considering the vast scope of privacy issues pertaining to the collection, storage, and sharing of this personal information, the problems of age verification in restricting free speech are compounded by these reckless and harmful approaches to verification."

"Forcing people to give up their privacy to access legal content is the exact opposite of good policy. It's surveillance dressed up as safety."

"Even if the technology works, another problem remains: the [ID-]wallet is set to become mandatory for signing up to social media platforms. Once this infrastructure is in place, the legislator could later decide that more data may be collected in future."

"Rather than risk liability for how they should have known a user was under 13, they will require all users to prove their age to ensure that they block anyone under 13."

"Accounts are among the primary mechanisms through which platforms can identify child users and direct safety measures toward them. By removing accounts, the legislation arguably strips away a key layer of child-specific protection."

"Unfortunately, it should be clear by now that none of the age verification options are perfect in terms of protecting information, providing access to everyone, and safely handling sensitive data."

"[A ban] may inadvertently push children to less regulated or riskier parts of the internet."

"If we accept that social media is a powerful force - and it is - then we should treat it as we do other powerful tools. We do not ban young people from driving until 18 and then simply hand over the keys without preparation. We phase access. We teach the rules. We supervise early experiences."

"I don't think you'll ever get all the kids off. What we're really teaching them is how to get around the rules. And I think that's really worrying."

"Even setting aside this legal hurdle, experience in countries such as the UK and Australia shows how easily children and young people can circumvent age restrictions – and then find themselves navigating online platforms entirely without any safeguards. Bans on social media, therefore, do a disservice to the protection of minors online. Instead of excluding children and young people, we need to hold platforms accountable."

"Sledgehammer techniques like bans" [only cause more problems] [as reported by BBC]"

"It is not the child that must adapt to the digital world, but the digital world to the child. Locking children and young people out of the digital world is not protection. [translated from German]"

"I know it has become normalised that, whatever social, cultural or moral panics we encounter, we believe that we can legislate to make them go away. I fear that this sort of lawmaking can lead to avoiding tackling difficult problems and to attempts at quick-fix solutions that too often create a whole new raft of difficulties down the line."

"I sometimes hear people say "yes but age-gating can at least help as an emergency measure while we act on the rest". This is simply not true. It could even be worse than doing nothing (...). But kids deserve better than a quick fix solution that risks making them less protected."

"It suggests that [a blanket ban] is the solution to the problem, but that is an illusion (...) Social media has long since ceased to be merely entertainment; it's also a place where democracy takes place."

"Experience suggests that teens do not go offline when banned from major platforms but instead migrate to smaller and less-moderated platforms with smaller safety teams and where regulators have less leverage."

"Age-based bans are difficult to regulate and may push children toward covert or unmoderated platforms, reducing opportunities for guidance and digital literacy education."

"Many parents feel overwhelmed (...) So we have essentially failed to equip parents with the skills they need to guide their children through this. And the question that then arises is: do we therefore ban children from accessing these services against their rights, or do we manage to empower parents again to accompany their children? I believe the latter is more respectful of fundamental rights."

"Top-down bans are perhaps the last thing the younger generation needs. Even during the pandemic, decisions were often made without regard for children and young people. (...) To create bans, especially for those least able to defend themselves politically, on an issue that clearly affects everyone, comes across as patronizing."

"My main concern is that the UK is responding to a moral panic where public narratives regarding the impact of youth and technology are not matched by good data. These have happened before with books, radio, comic books, rock and roll, “video nasties”, video games, etc., yet we keep repeating the pattern."

"Kids will find very quickly the ways to go around and to still use social media."

"LGBTQ+ youth in unsupportive households lose identity-affirming communities, peer support and crisis resources when experiencing suicidal ideation, children in abusive homes lose external lifelines, independent communication channels and access to mandatory reporters, effectively trapping them with their abusers."

"It is particularly worrying that adolescents who depend on social networks to connect and express themselves, and who use these media for inclusion, end up in unregulated digital spaces, where there is even less protection."

"We talk a lot about addiction and dopamine triggers," the scientist says regarding the effects of social media. In fact, neuroscientific studies in this area are "scarce." Many findings are based on so-called cross-sectional research, meaning a snapshot of data."

"Age restrictions will not necessarily make children safer online, and the costs to children’s rights, wellbeing, and digital futures are potentially far greater than the public conversation has acknowledged."

"So when we speak out against a blanket ban on social media, it is not because we do not see these problems, but because we have come to the conviction that such a ban will not be able to solve these problems – and itself causes problems. [translated from German]"

"While placing the blame on one factor is enticing, there is a risk of looking past long-standing and established causes of mental health difficulties that require much more complex and fundamental changes."

"The fact remains that prohibition without education rarely eliminates behaviour; it simply displaces it. Young people will find workarounds or move to less visible platforms, often with fewer safeguards. And those who rely on digital spaces for connection - LGBTQ+ teenagers, for instance, or those in isolated communities - may find themselves more cut off, not less. This is why education must be at the centre of any serious response."

"We are told social media is a massive problem for our youth, but we should question if this is actually true,”(..) Whelan’s own research with adolescents in Ireland did find a negative relationship between social media and adolescent wellbeing. However, the effect was very weak and not clinically relevant."

"For young people in particular, social media can provide opportunities to connect with like-minded individuals, forge friendships, and find communities that offer meaning and identity. This can be especially important for young people in the LGBTQ+ community. Furthermore, it's important to remember that young people also have a right to information through media, which is at least partially fulfilled by social media."

"(...) queries relating to circumvention, workarounds or continuity of access produce especially unstable and commercially saturated information environments. Search results associated with VPN use, alternative platforms, age verification bypasses and account retention frequently elevate monetised content, low-quality technical advice and commercially motivated cybersecurity material ahead of authoritative guidance relating to privacy or safety. This raises the possibility that regulatory interventions intended to improve safety may indirectly incentivise movement toward less transparent and less accountable digital infrastructures."

"I think it [a ban] certainly gets rid of all the harmful aspects, but it gets rid of the good ones too and I'm just not yet sure if that's proportionate."

"As for safety and whether this ban will throw children off a cliff edge, it risks not equipping youth with the skills to safely and responsibly navigate the online world, to know how to identify problems, spot dodgy red flags and apply strategies to deal with them."

"Articles combining sensationalist elements (specifically, alarming "warning" language) with strong scientific information framing – such as discussing study limitations and situating findings within the broader research context – garnered both immediate and long-term attention. Content focusing on younger children, published on established websites, and presenting screen time negatively also received higher shares."

"(...) age-based restrictions and bans on mobile devices, are unlikely to be effective in practice — or worse, could backfire given what we know about adolescent behaviour."

"There is a real risk now that children will be driven to darker places on the internet and stop talking to adults about what they might see."

"If children learn that online restrictions can be easily bypassed through misrepresenting their age or using alternative platforms, they may begin to see digital rules as flexible or optional."

"Experiences in countries like Great Britain and Australia show how easily children and young people can circumvent age restrictions – and then find themselves on online platforms completely without protective measures. Banning social media therefore does a disservice to online youth protection."."

"(...) although evidence from Australia's social media ban for under 16s is thus far preliminary and anecdotal, this evidence suggests a failed policy. Most youth remain on social media having circumvented the ban, and those who have successfully been blocked from social media appear to be experiencing an increase in mental health problems, not a decrease."

"Restricting access on regulated platforms may also push young people towards less moderated or riskier digital spaces, where they may be less inclined to seek help from trusted adults."

"I believe social media content needs to be regulated in some way, especially for children and young people,(...) [but] General bans tend to have the opposite effect. What makes more sense than bans is working with young people."

"If we fail to address those underlying business and design incentives, we risk focusing on restricting children's access, rather than on changing the environments that are harmful to them. I can guarantee that age-gating some online services won't give an incentive to those actors to act."

"Symbolic politics won't help (...) We share the concerns of many parents, but are skeptical about a general ban."

"the legislation addresses account-holding but not content access, leaving children exposed to many of the risks of harm it was designed to mitigate. "

"Amnesty International has described Australia's approach as an 'ineffective quick fix' that infringes on children's rights to expression, information, and participation."

"Instead of trying to completely shield young people from social media, education-based approaches empower young people and have the benefit of providing skills that stay with a young person long after they leave the classroom."

"Rather than treating the ban as an end in itself, we should see it as an opportunity to rethink how young people are introduced to digital life in the first place. The goal should not simply be to keep them offline for as long as possible, but to equip them, gradually and deliberately, to navigate that space in a healthy, safe and socially meaningful way."

"Adult-led protectionism frequently 'squeezes out' participation rights."

"We may be witnessing what is often described as symbolic legislation: when policymakers cannot resolve a complex problem, they signal decisiveness through a seemingly simple solution. The underlying causes remain unaddressed."

"Once they reach the required minimum age, young people are once again subject to the same mechanisms, but without having previously gained any experience of the risks associated with media use, and are therefore all the more vulnerable to their effects."

"Blanket bans for under-16s are unlikely to deliver meaningful safety improvements and risk unintended harms, such as migration to less regulated or encrypted platforms, reduced opportunities for early digital literacy, and increased generational inequality."

"In truth, this approach encourages parents to outsource their authority and shifts responsibility from parents to the state. All families ultimately are being told that they are incapable of managing their children’s habits, and that is itself a dangerous precedent. It can disarm parents in the name of empowerment."

"The regulation of digital platforms and the protection of children and adolescents in the digital environment is a complex challenge that does not allow for simple solutions based solely on age."

"Even if the social media ban was effective, people would still be able to cyberbully people on group chats."

"A blanket ban on social media is at once too narrow and too broad: too narrow, because it ignores other digital services, in particular AI chatbots; too broad, because it excessively curtails empowerment and participation. It is as if one were to drive a lawnmower over the vegetable patch instead of using a weed puller to selectively remove the dandelions. [translated from German]"

"In the Arab region, children's encounters with platforms, messaging apps, digital video content, and school technologies are often discussed through a protection-first lens that prioritises restriction, censorship, and control. While safety concerns are understandable, they can narrow how children's participation, voice, self-expression, and play are understood in policy and practice."

"A purely age-based technical access restriction fails to address the core issues surrounding youth safety online. Such hurdles can easily be bypassed by using a parent's or friend's account, another device, or a VPN."

"Technology companies do have real issues, such as privacy concerns, harassment on online platforms, and adult material slipping into child platforms. But if the concern is mental health, a hyper focus on technology will most likely be a distracting exercise in futility just as past media bans have been. At this juncture, there is little reason to believe that a social media ban for minors would be helpful for youth mental health."

"For more than a decade, UK governments have introduced successive child safety measures (...). Yet at each stage, the measures have delivered far less than was expected. Meanwhile, as online problems appear to escalate, the measures imposed seem more and more extreme, and even politicians admit that they're likely to be less than fully effective."

"These restrictions might be intuitively appealing as protective approaches, but they are unlikely to be effective (1–3) and come with serious complications."

"Unless ministers have a coherent plan to urgently learn lessons, the UK's ban will similarly unravel. Parents will be left with false hope and a misplaced sense of their children's safety. The next prime minister must enter Downing Street with a convincing strategy that properly protects children from online harm, rather than relying on a performative ban which, as this research suggests, is unlikely to improve our teens' mental health and wellbeing."

"Fear-based content may have a higher likelihood of spreading because of the nature of sharing an article with your social network as a means of warning them of a potential negative outcome. It also may be due to a cognitive bias, where articles were shared frequently among people who already believed that screen time is bad for children's development, creating an echo chamber in which content taking an opposing perspective performs relatively poorly."

"When children migrate to less regulated and less visible corners of the internet, they do not leave behind the risks the legislation sought to address; they encounter those risks in environments where protective infrastructure is thinner, enforcement is weaker, and adult oversight is more limited."

"(...) protection designed without attention to [children's] rights to expression, association, privacy and information tends to displace harms, and risks burdening the most vulnerable most severely."

"Social media use is ubiquitous and habitual among adolescents and serves core social functions, including supporting peer interaction, identity formation, and social connectedness."

"Section 2(b) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms protects freedom of expression, with the result that a law blocking an entire age cohort from lawful platforms necessarily restricts a Charter-protected interest of the very people the legislation claims to protect."

"(...) AI-based age estimates rely on the processing of highly sensitive data, often by third-party providers with opaque data protection practices, as evidenced by massive data breaches."

"Social media isn’t just where young people happen to find news: it’s where they go looking for it. Our data suggests that, for many young people, blocking their social media access doesn’t redirect their news engagement – it ends it."

"Policies developed without meaningfully consulting children do not merely fail to honour their rights to participation—they actively undermine the civic trust and digital agency that young people will need to flourish."

"Before considering a ban, governments and parliaments should pause and exercise caution. They should consult with experts, civil society, and children, and ensure that proposals are human rights compliant."

"(...) very few people seem to be aware of the fact that a ban on social media access for under-16s will necessitate the same ‘papers please’ society that compulsory digital ID would."

"Children’s rights and inclusion: International frameworks recognise young people’s rights to expression, information, and participation in social and cultural life. Broad restrictions risk undermining these rights and increasing digital exclusion."

"Any decision to ban social media for young people must take into account that this would curtail their right to access media and to participate in politics, culture and education."

"The principle of evolving capacities challenges the current fashion for bans and bright-line age rules—for a ban represents the opposite of enabling, and undermines the important expectation of facilitating positive rights from as early as possible while extending protections as long as they are needed. Moreover, unlike those favouring bans, advocates of a child rights approach would avoid the implied binary that offline is good and online is bad, for this overlooks the nuanced reality of children's integrated digital lives."

"[The ban] deeply interferes with the rights of children and young people to develop freely, to express themselves and to access information and media."

"There is no current technology that is fully privacy-protective, universally accessible, and consistently accurate. Facial age estimation tools are notoriously unreliable, particularly for people of color, trans and nonbinary people, and people with disabilities."

"Social media is not a luxury – for many children, especially those who are isolated or marginalised, it is a lifeline providing access to learning, connection, play, and self-expression. What’s more, many children and young people will still access social media, whether through workarounds, shared devices, or turning to less regulated platforms, ultimately making it harder to protect them."

"The [Online Safety Act] is too complicated for us to summarise everything about it. But clearly, segregating categories of content like 'violence' (including UK police or Israeli military violence), 'sexuality' (including LGBTQ+ advice and social discussions), 'drugs' (including discussion of managing harms and avoiding risks), and so on, is problematic. Firstly, because the aim is to prevent teenagers from accessing this content, and secondly because adults are required to age verify and sacrifice privacy to access what can include political and socially important content. Future measures will include automated takedowns, and could even include breaking encryption to scan content."

"The Charter problem is sharpened by what a ban actually does in practice, since it blocks all lawful content on a regulated platform for everyone in the affected age group, regardless of individual circumstance, parental consent, or the nature of the use."

"Such bans also create free speech nightmares not only for youth who may benefit from many opportunities on social media, but also by creating an authoritarian government speech control that will affect adults as well as youth."

"Even facial age estimation solutions where pictures of your face never leave your device, offering some protection against data leakage, are not a good option for all users: facial age estimation works less well for people of color, trans and nonbinary people, and people with disabilities."

"Such a social media ban is likely to also have negative human rights impacts on children and young people. Where rights are limited to protect children from online harms, any limitations must be lawful, necessary and proportionate. This means using the least restrictive option available to achieve the intended purpose. If there are less restrictive options available to achieve the aim of protecting children from harm, they should be preferred over a blanket ban (e.g. such as a digital duty of care). (...) It is clear that we need to better protect children and young people online. On balance, the Australian Human Rights Commission does not believe that a blanket ban on social media for under-16s is the right response."

"Children in rural areas, children with family overseas, disabled children, and children who rely on online spaces for identity, support, or community may be particularly affected."

"(...) attempts are regularly made to estimate the age of young people by processing biometric data, such as facial scans. Such systems have high error rates when determining an exact age (...) These errors are exacerbated in the case of women, non-white people, non-binary people and people with disabilities."

"Estonia bases its minimum age for social media use on the GDPR, which permits the processing of children's data from the age of thirteen. We believe additional barriers would impose a disproportionate restriction on children's access to the information society."

"Blanket bans deprive children and young people of their autonomy and stand in stark contrast to their right to digital participation and the development of media literacy, as guaranteed by the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child."

"(...) the distinction in treatment is disadvantageous for the group of under-16s, since it interferes with their rights to freedom of expression and access to information; freedom of association and assembly; the right to education and development; the right to culture, leisure and play; the right to the highest attainable standard of health, including through access to relevant information; and the right to privacy."

"Excluding children and young people from digital spaces across the board is also problematic in that, in an increasingly digital society, acquiring digital media literacy is non-negotiable. [translated from German]"

"No one should have to choose between accessing online communities and protecting their privacy."

"Age restrictions must be part of a broader approach that protects children from harm, respects their rights to privacy and participation, and avoids pushing them into unregulated, less safe spaces."

"Families need early advice, schools need reliable concepts, young people need safe services and accessible help, and platforms need clear obligations. [translated from German]"

"What if instead of chasing kids around the internet, we took advantage of the network effects that gather teens on these platforms and, instead, changed those platforms to work the way that Australians want? Maybe even improving them for Australians 16 and over."

"The Digital Services Act (DSA) already imposes obligations relating to child safety, risk mitigation and platform accountability. Yet much of the debate now assumes that the only credible response is age-gating children out of online spaces. That would be a huge mistake. I would instead urge the Commission to focus much more vigorously on enforcement, but also on additional measures targeting harmful platform design itself."

"The UK can stick to a policy ratchet where failed policies lead to more of the same, without really causing anyone at a social media company to blink. Or it can engage in more effective policy design, by looking at the social media system in its fuller context, and then shifting the measures from costs on users, to user empowerment, directly tackling the market power of social media which is generating online harms."

"Online platforms demonstrate inadequate response and intervention mechanisms for harm reporting. There is overreliance on automation for context-sensitive moderation, with systems consistently failing to recognise culturally specific expressions of violence rooted in South African linguistic and cultural contexts. This technological failure represents a form of structural violence that compounds interpersonal harms adolescents experience."

"Responsibility for a healthy upbringing does not lie in a single place, and certainly not solely with the child. [translated from German]"

"Bans on social media, therefore, do a disservice to the protection of minors online. Instead of excluding children and young people, we need to hold platforms accountable."

"Too many children face risks of harm that are not incidental but structurally embedded in the design decisions of platforms, which optimise for engagement rather than wellbeing."

"Blanket social media bans are not a one-off panacea for what is a multifaceted issue. Simply limiting access to platforms that remain unsafe cannot stand as the endpoint in effectively protecting children. We need much wider action – by Governments and companies – to ensure that the platforms themselves are made safer by design, that data is protected, that those responsible for harm can held to account, and that children’s rights and needs are fully respected throughout. States need to require tech companies to embed safety into their platforms by design, instead of shifting the burden to parents and children."

"[It] punishes children for the fixable faults created by the tech giants by denying them the social engagement that is some of the best parts of social media."

"I believe we all see every day that the digital space, in many respects, is not as we would wish it to be, and brings with it manifold dangers for children and young people. This is above all because providers do not take the protection, participation and empowerment of children and young people as their guiding principle, but rather profit maximisation. [translated from German]"

"It's the 15 years in which we don't let our children go outside and meet their friends. It's the 15 years in which we stopped funding parks and youth clubs for them to meet in. So a ban now is to say to children: 'We can't make the regulation work. We can't update it fast enough. We haven't built you anything else to do, but that's just tough. We've terrified your parents into feeling that there's nothing they can do, and we're going to take you away from the service where you hoped you would feel some sociability and entertainment."

"The question is: Who are we actually regulating? Are we regulating the companies—creating ‘traffic-calmed zones’ and clear rules? Or are we locking children in and saying: You’re not allowed to go outside because it’s unsafe out there, and you must show your ID at every corner? I’m not sure that’s the better option."

"Estonia is currently among the few countries that do not support a general ban on digital content for under-15s. For us, it is important to explain our position calmly and clearly, and to continue standing by it. At the same time, we strongly believe that social media platforms need stricter limits — and that the rules already agreed must actually be enforced."

"Legislators have a valid interest in protecting children, but that interest must be pursued through tailored, measured approaches. We cannot allow emotions or a collection of flawed data sets to justify a historic rollback of digital rights."

"Enforcing restrictions just says that they [the young people] are responsible, not the social media companies."

"Right now, I worry that the European debate is increasingly framing the problem as "children are on social media", rather than asking what kind of digital environments we are allowing platforms to create in the first place. And this distinction matters immensely."

"Tools that operate on the intensive margin—capping time on platforms rather than prohibiting accounts outright—target the heavy use most plausibly responsible for the harms the ban is meant to address while preserving the social value of moderate use. They therefore both lower the welfare cost of the policy and reduce the private incentive to circumvent it, consistent with teens' own preference for self-limiting applications over an outright ban."

"Instead of a social media ban for young people, what is needed is age verification for adults. Only people who can prove they are of legal age should be able to activate risky features – such as autoplay, infinite scrolling, or the option to be contacted by strangers. With this approach, all users are comprehensively protected, while at the same time we ensure young people's participation in the digital world. [translated from German]"

"Platforms must be part of the solution. Systems that promote endless scrolling or amplify extreme content are not inevitable; they are the result of design choices."

"We know children and young people get their news online and through apps, so you cut that off. My view would be that I don't think this justifies a ban. To me, what this justifies is more responsible behavior by social platforms to cut down on their most harmful features."

"The concerns associated with social media are real, but they are not unique to young users. Algorithmic manipulation, addictive engagement design, inadequate content moderation, inconsistent policy enforcement, insufficient transparency, and privacy risks affect users of every age, and treating them as a children's problem misidentifies both the source of the harm and the appropriate target of regulation."

"Banning children’s access to social media, though, shifts the responsibility for safety from the platforms that create the environment to the children who navigate it. States should require platforms to prevent and mitigate risks to children’s rights by design and by default, and hold platforms accountable for failures."

"Platforms should change so they are suitable for children, rather than children simply being banned from them."

"There are lots of areas where we have a well functioning market that requires testing to establish it meets the standards…[before products] can go into the market. If we did that for AI and for social media, we would be in a whole different place and we'd not be having to talk about banning children from anything."

"The question is not whether we can keep them out, but whether policy equips young people to live well within it. Therefore the goal needs to shift from restriction to readiness."

"The digital world must align with the rights, needs, and developmental opportunities of children and young people — not the other way around. [translated from German]"

"Digital Rights Watch welcomes the first draft of the [Australian] Children's Online Privacy Code, which centers on improving the online spaces that young people use, instead of restricting their access. This approach respects the rights of young people to be part of the online world, and forces corporations to make their online services safer and is a huge step forward and we’d like to see it work for adults as well as children"

"A significant part of these risks results from the business model of many digital offerings, which is based on data collection and advertising. Not only social media, but also online games, streaming services and AI chatbots are designed so that their mechanisms maximise users' time on the service. Algorithms often favour the spread of misinformation and extreme content in order to attract and hold attention. [translated from German]"

"Because ultimately, the core issue is not the age of users. The core issue is that many online platforms are designed around maximising engagement, time spent, behavioural tracking and data monetisation — at the expense of users' wellbeing, especially children."

"What is also apparent is that the measures are mostly burdens on users, rather than platforms. They cause privacy and free expression costs, introduce age verification and other barriers that act on users. (...) The engine of online harms, ie algorithmic prioritisation, remains essentially untouched. The attention-seeking goal of the social media system is not changed, and the policy interventions seem to work against rather than with the overall system."

"This March, Brazil implemented one of the world's most ambitious regulatory frameworks for addictive design. Decree 12,880/2026, which implements the country's Digital Statute of Children and Adolescents (the ECA Digital), is no aspirational document. Articles 9 and 10 ban specific design features, including infinite scroll, autoplay, time-based rewards, excessive notifications, obstruction of privacy controls and exploitation of cognitive vulnerabilities. Penalties can reach up to 10% of a company's group revenue in Brazil, capped at R$50 million per violation."

"[A ban risks] to partially transfer the problem on families (...) [restrictions can also be ineffective unless governments put more pressure on platforms to] take their responsibilities."

"The question is not whether children should be online, but what obligations platforms must meet to deserve their presence."

"Online harms to kids’ safety, privacy and wellbeing are not innate or inevitable; they result from design choices and business practices that undermine safety, including addictive design features, such as infinite scroll, autoplay, and persistent notifications from apps. Enhancing protection of children online is an urgent priority that we need to make sure not only gets done - but that it gets done right."

"(...) meaningful safeguards for children require moving beyond narrow protectionist framings toward systemic, rights-based approaches. These should include enforceable measures on algorithmic transparency and independent auditing, limits on profiling and secondary data repurposing, and child-centred design standards."

"Despite its simplicity and good intentions, restrictive bans could cut young people off from connection and creativity, and relieve platforms of their responsibility to building safe environments for younger users."

"I think the argument for a ban is an admission of failure that we cannot regulate companies, so we can only restrict children."

"I fear that in the end, we will get a solution that doesn't hold up. We are currently having a very intense and heated debate that has partly detached itself from the facts and the legal situation. The end result could be a sham solution that actually harms young people and signals to the big tech corporations: you can carry on as before."

"[The government] should be spending much more time focused on getting rid of the poor quality content off these platforms rather than trying to keep the kids off."

"The DSA already mandates that social media platforms ensure a safe environment for children, requiring private accounts, safe algorithms, and the prevention of addictive features and manipulative business practices. The focus should remain on platforms' own responsibility and effective risk‑mitigation measures, rather than narrowly on age‑verification requirements that could restrict users' rights to access social media and other online services."

"Two things can be independently true about social media. First, that there is no evidence that using these platforms is rewiring children’s brains or driving an epidemic of mental illness. Second, that considerable reforms to these platforms are required, given how much time young people spend on them."

"(...) if the Commission believes that certain recommender systems, addictive design features or dark patterns are incompatible with children's rights and wellbeing, then this should be clarified directly — whether through stronger interpretation of existing obligations, or future instruments such as the [Digital Fairness Act]."

"What we need to do is help our children of any age use these powerful tools in ways that are healthy, smart, and kind."

"The way to approach this, to me, is not to make kids responsible for that harm and start self-regulating. Europe pretends to be weak when it comes to big American and international corporations."

"The Federation of German Consumer Organisations shares the [German] Ethics Council's assessment: a statutory minimum age for social media alone is not enough. Digital services must be designed for everyone in such a way that there is no risk of addiction and minors are protected, without excluding them. [translated from German]"

"[A ban] risks letting technology companies off the hook"

"(...) digital safety is not an individual responsibility but a systemic one that spans families, caregiving structures, schools, civil society, regulators and technology companies."

"By focusing legislative attention on who is permitted to use social media rather than on how the platforms operate, an age-based ban functions as a pressure-relief valve for legislators and a gift to the companies, since it allows them to maintain existing practices while shifting the regulatory conversation to age-gating mechanisms that the platforms themselves will administer."

"The source of harm is rooted in the design and incentives of the platforms. That should be the primary focus of regulation."

"[Governments] should be implementing the law [and] big tech companies should be facing a slew of regulatory interventions that forbid a whole series of practices that they currently do."

"[A ban] was too simplistic a framing"

"Children's rights are more recently under pressure in a digital world, fuelled by today's geopolitical tensions and the growing power of Big Tech, as well as the rapidity of technological innovation outpacing the actions of states and civil society to protect and empower citizens, including children."

"Extrapolating from the median effects found in the [Millennium Cohort Study] data set, we point out that those adolescents who reported technology use would need to report 63 hr and 31 min more of technology use a day in their time-use diaries to decrease their well-being by 0.50 standard deviations, a magnitude often seen as a cutoff for effects that participants would be subjectively aware of."

"Australia is the test case for a ban and the experience to date suggests it does not work."

"Most data are correlative. When associations over time are found, they suggest not that social-media use predicts or causes depression, but that young people who already have mental-health problems use such platforms more often or in different ways from their healthy peers."

"Age restrictions will not necessarily make children safer online, and the costs to children’s rights, wellbeing, and digital futures are potentially far greater than the public conversation has acknowledged."

"For the vast majority of people (and kids) using social media, though, I do not think addiction is the right word to use. And I worry that by labeling the average kid’s use “addiction,” we are: (1) ignoring the many different activities they might be doing on social media (2) removing agency by suggesting that they are incapable of managing social media use, and (3) pathologizing a behavior, rather than implementing reasonable measures—in our homes, schools, and the products themselves—to address it."

"Our findings tell us that young people’s choices around social media and gaming may be shaped by how they’re feeling but not necessarily the other way around."

"Calls for similar bans are mounting internationally, as well as in the United Kingdom. Again, generating popular support but contested by researchers on the grounds that evidence for social media harms is mixed, as is that for the effectiveness of bans, since children may find workarounds."

"In the last 2 years we’ve seen a massive push across nations to ban youth access to social media. This is despite the lack of evidence that social media is associated with youth mental health, and experimental studies which find no or “weak” evidence that reducing social media time is helpful."

"Large-scale meta-analyses covering dozens of countries have failed to show a consistent, measurable association between the rollout of social media and a decline in global well-being. In reality, we are seeing a classic case of what many of our middle school science teachers warned us about: ‘correlation’ being sold as ‘causation.’"

"[The ban could also make teens more susceptible to misinformation.] This isn't a good thing. It wasn't the intention of the ban, but it's the reality."

"The available evidence does not currently show a blanket ban would make children safer online."

"As political attention turns once again to proposals for a blanket ban on social media use for under-16s, it is vital that policy decisions are guided by evidence, not popularity."

"Once upon a time, in a previous moral panic about children’s safety, parents reacted to the media and politicians catastrophising by stopping their offspring playing outside unsupervised. The unintended consequence was the creation of what became known as ‘cotton-wool kids’, prone to risk aversion, anxiety, lack of resilience and social isolation. Ironically, to compensate, many of those children were forced to cultivate their activities online. Their social interactions became virtual, and here we are."

"We did not find evidence that increased social media adoption is consistently negatively associated with well-being."

"In all three datasets the effects of both smoking marijuana and bullying have much larger negative associations with adolescent well-being (2.7x and 4.3x respectively for YRBS) than technology use does. (...) Neutral factors provide perhaps the most useful context to judge technology engagement effects: the association of well-being with regularly eating potatoes was nearly as negative as the association with technology use (0.9x, YRBS) and wearing glasses was more negatively associated with well-being (1.5x, MCS)."

"Unfortunately, I believe many policy makers have been misled by books of pop psychology such as the Anxious Generation. Such books should not be taken seriously and have been criticized by scholars many times. They should certainly not be the basis for policy."

"Additionally, the studies used to support these measures often fail to account for or exclude significant alternative explanations for rising teen anxiety and depression, such as the lasting impact of pandemic-era isolation, the persistent threat of school gun violence, and mounting economic or climate-related stress. By focusing narrowly on social media, these findings frequently overlook the broader societal factors that also impact youth mental health."

"certainly isn’t enough evidence an all out ban would be effective"

"(...) reviewing the scientific literature, there is no consensus that social media itself causes mental health problems. (...) This does not mean that social media is a safe or appropriate space for children, but rather that establishing a debate or regulation based solely on age is insufficient."

"Our search yielded 25 reviews: seven meta-analyses, nine systematic, and nine narrative reviews. Results showed that most reviews interpreted the associations between social media use and mental health as 'weak' or 'inconsistent' (...)."

"(In Canada) 72 per cent of respondents said parents, not governments, should be primarily responsible for regulating teens' social media use, which directly contradicts the support for a ban."

"The quality of the evidence on the impact of social media use on mental health is quite low. In other words, there is no unanimous agreement that such an impact exists."

"I am not against a social media ban for under 16s, but I am not either convinced that this proposal alone can solve the problem because that type of ban can be easily circumvented."

"Spending 6 hours on social media may be less socially desirable than spending 6 hours with friends, but the dopamine response is exactly the same. As neuroscientist Dean Burnett put it, talk of dopamine is “science garnish”, making pseudoscience beliefs sound scientific by crudely using neuroscience language. There is no solid evidence base to support these concerns."

"Usually it is better to explain the problem and find hopefully the best solution to the problem. If you have already said that we are going for a ban and we are looking for a way how to do it, then this is a little bit biased"

"We found that social media use is not, in and of itself, a strong predictor of life satisfaction across the adolescent population. Instead, social media effects are nuanced, small at best, reciprocal over time, gender specific, and contingent on analytic methods."

"By bypassing the rigorous, nuanced findings of the scientific community in favor of a more convenient narrative, legislators are choosing emotion over evidence. Before imposing such draconian restrictions on young people’s access to information, policymakers have an obligation to do the heavy lifting: to dig into the actual research and listen to the experts who are sounding the alarm on oversimplified conclusions."

"Hundreds of researchers, myself included, have searched for the kind of large effects suggested by (Jonathan) Haidt (author of The Anxious Generation). Our efforts have produced a mix of no, small and mixed associations."

"The notion that digital-screen engagement decreases adolescent well-being has become a recurring feature in public, political, and scientific conversation. The current level of psychological evidence, however, is far removed from the certainty voiced by many commentators. There is little clear-cut evidence that screen time decreases adolescent well-being, and most psychological results are based on single-country, exploratory studies that rely on inaccurate but popular self-report measures of digital-screen engagement."

"Australia’s leading youth mental health organisations opposed the social media age restrictions legislation on the grounds that it would undermine children’s access to mental health information."

"People are not standing up to it because the moral panic and fear around this issue has reached a fevered pitch."

"It is one thing to say that for some kids, social media is one factor contributing to mental health symptoms. It is another entirely to say that social media is causing mental health problems on a large scale. It is still the case that if you take an average, healthy teen and give them social media, this is highly unlikely to create a mental illness. Let’s not lose sight of the whole picture, and the many other factors that contribute to mental health, too."

"There are now three meta-analyses of experimental studies, all of which have concluded that reducing social media use produces either no or 'weak' effects. None of these supported social media reduction as policy. None of these supported social media reduction as policy."

"Empirical evidence for harms is, on balance, more speculative than conclusive. Recent results on the associations between social media use and well-being are mixed and depend on arbitrary analytic choices. (...) A general lack of validated measures, poorly specified causal models, and inadequate data have yielded a large number of low-quality studies."

"In short, the available research suggests that development plays a role in children's resilience, vulnerabilities and susceptibility to the risks and possible negative effects associated with social media use. However, it does not sufficiently support bright-line rules or age limits, nor does it reliably inform recommendations on what is age-appropriate."

"What that research shows is much more nuanced than what is claimed by those proposing to ban young people from social media, and it is clear that research and theories used to justify these sweeping bans is far from settled."

"It is not unreasonable for parents to ask questions about children's social media use, however at present, parents may be misled by unsupportable rhetoric from policymakers and some professional guilds to believe that the evidence for harm is greater than it is."

"Australia pursued a big, bold ban instead of other reforms. The Albanese government sold it to the world and used it to burnish its reputation for helping kids and holding big tech accountable. Now, as the early results come in, it doesn’t look like it’s successfully doing either."

"As part of the government's consultation, we undertook a children's rights impact assessment, which found a social media ban for under-16s would not currently be a proportionate, effective, or enforceable way to protect children's rights."

"Canadian politicians now citing the Australian model with approval are pointing to a model whose own regulator's data suggests does not work."

"At this point, one thing we know clearly is that time spent on social media or other devices is not a predictor of youth mental health."

"More than 86% of adolescents [under] 16 years continued to use restricted social media platforms at follow-up, most via their own account. Exposure to age assurance measures, a requirement of the Act, was also not universally reported, with ≤39% of participants aged under 16 reporting any age assurance measure across platforms subject to the Act."

"Any move along those lines should be thought about extremely carefully. It could come with a catalogue of unintended consequences."

"The association we find between digital technology use and adolescent well-being is negative but small, explaining at most 0.4% of the variation in well-being. Taking the broader context of the data into account suggests that these effects are too small to warrant policy change."

"Whilst blanket bans on media may make it harder to access risky online spaces, young people can only learn how to use the internet competently and safely through active engagement."

"The reality is that research has consistently disproven the oft-assumed link between social media use and poor mental health in youth, and actually indicates that moderate internet use is a net positive for teens’ development, and negative outcomes are usually due to either lack of access or excessive use."

"The long-term consequence is that they will be less likely to be well-informed about what's happening in the world. And the ultimate knock on effect is that this is bad for our democracy."

"This is something that has gone off on what is essentially the whim of the executive without any prior consultation. I would be very concerned that the whole thing is starting off rather half-cocked."

"I am currently working on a dataset from The Global Mind Project which finds no evidence that age of smartphone or tablet acquisition impacts later mental health. However, this data does reveal something that does influence mental health: adverse childhood events."

"I think it is a hasty measure, taken with little quality evidence, whose effects we do not yet fully understand, but which is relatively easy to take in political and popular terms."

"We are told social media is a massive problem for our youth, but we should question if this is actually true. (...) Across the scientific literature, there is very little evidence saying that social media leads to a decline in wellbeing for youth."

"We found no evidence suggesting that the global penetration of social media is associated with widespread psychological harm: Facebook adoption predicted life satisfaction and positive experiences positively, and negative experiences negatively, both between countries and within countries over time."

"We know families are worried, but our results do not support the idea that simply spending time on social media or gaming leads to mental health problems – the story is far more complex than that."

"Evidence from psychology, education, and computer science shows why restrictions fall short, how they can backfire, and which interventions—combining design with enabling policies—can support development "

"The rush to ban access to digital platforms is being fueled by "pop psychology" narratives and a collection of statistically flawed studies that do not meet the rigorous standards required for such a massive infringement on youth autonomy and constitutional rights."

"Trivial trends are routinely overinterpreted by those under increasing pressure to rapidly craft evidence-based policies."

"(...) other technology restricting strategies such as banning cellphones from schools fail to provide meaningful benefits for student grades, behavior, or mental health."

"Rather than blaming technology itself, we need to pay attention to what young people are doing online, who they’re connecting with and how supported they feel in their daily lives."

"If we ban social media for under-16s, we are going to have to find alternative ways of communicating what they need to know, so we will have to pursue that."

"To pin all of society's woes on a smartphone app is not just a scientific error; it is a policy failure that ignores the real, material needs of young people both online and off.  "

"The debate around the social media ban has focused almost entirely on mental health and online safety. The consequences for young people’s news access have been largely absent from the conversation."

"(...) we have a generation in crisis and in desperate need of the best of what science and evidence-based solutions can offer. Unfortunately, our time is being spent telling stories that are unsupported by research and that do little to support young people who need, and deserve, more."

"(...) the bans being called for in many places interfere significantly with the lives of children and young people, without offering any alternatives or even involving them in the development of regulatory approaches. Such bans would cut off positive channels of social communication in this area and deprive children of a safe haven in their lives without providing a suitable alternative."

"To all these initiatives EFF has provided one consistent response: mandatory age verification measures are not the right way to protect young people. These proposals restrict the fundamental rights of young people to speak to each other and to access information."

"Before considering a ban, governments and parliaments should pause and exercise caution. They should consult with experts, civil society, and children, and ensure that proposals are human-rights compliant."

"Shutting young people out of digital public spaces, rather than building ones that work for them is not protection. It is exclusion."

"A blanket social media restriction could also isolate some youths instead of helping them."

"When asked which policy they prefer, 72% of under-16s would prefer a self-limiting application—one that allows use with built-in time controls—to an outright ban. (...) 72.5% of parents would prefer their child to live in a world without social media, against 31.9% of teenagers themselves."

"The uncomfortable truth is that parents need to step up. I am starting to think the problem isn’t really with our young people, but with the adults in the room. (...) if we are to raise our children to have a healthy balance between the digital and physical worlds, we must lead by example. Censorship is no example for us to set at all."

"This can deprive young people, particularly those exploring their gender identity, sexuality or political issues, of a key opportunity to experience a sense of belonging and community."

"The discussion of social media bans for minors typically treats children as objects of protection rather than as rights-holders, but they are both, and Canadian and international law has been moving steadily toward recognizing the latter."

"Discourse on children's digital and physical environments often figures the child as a vulnerable, powerless and exceptional case to the wider issues of rights. Children are universalised as reactive subjects, denied the right to participate as agents of change and limited to forms of participation they cannot counter."

"What has been notably less prominent in public debates is the systematic incorporation of children's own perspectives or of rigorous, cross-regional empirical research into how children inhabit and navigate digital environments. Governance designed without a diversity of children at its core (...) may end up governing against them."

"Legislators must stop legislating as "anxious parents" and start acting as measured policymakers. Because for some youth, social media platforms are a lifeline."

"Children are often not listened to by platforms, and this amounts to age discrimination. Unfortunately, EU law still does not prohibit age discrimination in the provision of digital services. I proposed that this should change. Today, EU law prohibits discrimination on grounds such as sex, race and nationality, but unequal treatment based on age is still not properly addressed. That is not right. Children are full citizens of the European Union too."

"(...) in line with Article 12 of the UNCRC on children's right to be heard in matters that affect them—there is merit in a child-centred participatory research agenda that ensures developmental perspectives are grounded in children's lived experiences in the digital environment, not least to make sure that researchers are aware of what children are doing and experiencing."

"The dominant policy discourse remains largely protectionist, emphasizing bans, age restrictions or limits on screen time. While such measures address certain harms, they risk framing children solely as passive and vulnerable, neglecting their capacity for agency, creativity and civic participation."

"LGBTQ+ youth, survivors of abuse, political dissidents, and countless others use aliases to explore identity, find support, and build community safely. When identity checks become a condition of participation, many users will simply opt out."

"The conversation about children's safety and rights in the digital world needs to move well beyond the debate on social media bans. To empower young people with the knowledge, skills and autonomy they want and need to navigate the online world in a safe and confident way, we must look at the bigger picture and that starts with hearing from young people."

"Measures such as blanket restrictions, surveillance-based monitoring and age-based exclusions often limit opportunities for participation, expression and learning, while rarely incorporating children's perspectives into their design or implementation."

"We are not going to change the way the young generation access information; we have to join them in those places and make sure it is full of really good, evidence-based, factual and correctly used terminology."

"(...) most surveys about the ban have only asked people if they are ‘for’ or ‘against’ it. Our study shows the most common response from young people is ‘mixed feelings’. This suggests that many young people perceive both advantages and disadvantages with the ban."

"Whether trial lawyers, makers of “child safety” products, or people promoting bestselling books, entire industries are generated during moral panics to profit from people’s fears. Unfortunately, these can distract society from the real problems children face: distressed families and failing schools. We should be at least as suspicious of this “fear” industry as we are of big tech companies themselves."

"In the policymaking and media debates surrounding the social media ban in Australia, young voices have been largely absent. Policy discussions tend to frame young people primarily as vulnerable and at risk, rather than as knowledgeable actors capable of contributing to solutions."

"A general ban would also reduce young people’s participation in key societal debates about politics, culture, and education."

"The social media ban feels like a punishment for something we didn't create."

"Social media is not simply a source of distraction. For some, it represents a lifeline. It is where many find recognition, solidarity and others like themselves, especially when those communities are absent in the world immediately around them. Removing access (...) could feel like a profound disruption to the social world they depend on."

"One of our major concerns in the current debate is that politicians often take a short-term view. We fear that a ban on social media will be seen not as a complementary measure within a long-term strategy, but as a quick, one-off solution. That is exactly what must not happen. Rigid bans will not get us anywhere. We need media literacy. Now."

"So let’s start listening to what our young people are asking us for—more education—instead of imposing paternalistic, disempowering bans."

"The voice of young people has been 'largely missing from this debate to date."

"Social media is just today’s satanic panic. You’ll find that the greatest proponents of age verification are those whose greatest concern is control. Age verification lets adults control the narratives that young people see — it’s not subtle. The internet lets young people connect outside of the controlled spheres of their parents’ worldview — and that’s the danger that proponents of age verification are terrified of."

"Social media is also a documented lifeline for marginalized youth, including LGBTQ+ youth in non-affirming environments, who rely on it for identity development and peer support, with the result that pushing kids off mainstream services hits hardest kids with the fewest alternatives."

"Finally, we would like to emphasise that it is important to involve children and young people appropriately and in an age-adequate manner in decisions about them, in order not only to ensure their protection, but also to promote participation and empowerment. [translated from German]"

"[Social media can] play an important role in many children's lives by supporting communication, self-expression, access to information, participation, play and connection with communities and support networks."

"The current policy treats social media use as a technical problem requiring a technical solution such as age verification and account controls. However, young people’s use of social media is not simply technical. It is deeply social and cultural, a space where identity, communication, peer relationships and belonging are formed."

"Estonia believes in an information society and including young people in the information society."

"When consulted, children often express concerns for their wellbeing but call for improved design and regulation for digital products and services to protect their safety and privacy. Far from being banned, they want to feel welcome in digital spaces and treated with respect, because they consider the 'digital' vital for their generation and future."

"(...) age limits on social media access can perpetuate the normalisation of excluding children from human rights such as the rights to information and freedom of expression, instead of addressing such exclusion. (...) by limiting political rights for 'age-restricted users', a social media age limit is part of silencing children's political voices, which are already unequal to adults'."

"I don't think adults understand how young people use social media, because they are not young people anymore."

"To ensure that youth protection measures do not lead to young people participating less in social exchange, feeling increasingly excluded, learning less how to deal critically with online information, and later mastering digital forms of communication less well in their working lives, the effects of protective measures on the other two dimensions of the child's wellbeing must always be considered as well. [translated from German]"