Germany also moving towards "SNS ban for under 16s"? The reality presented by the Australian pioneering model

Germany also moving towards "SNS ban for under 16s"? The reality presented by the Australian pioneering model

"Should social media be banned to protect children?" This question is gaining traction in Europe. Australia's pioneering move to restrict social media use by minors has not only been an experiment for one country but has also elevated discussions in Germany and across the EU. In Germany, not only the conservative CDU but also the center-left SPD have begun discussing phased regulations based on age, indicating a shift in the political climate.


Why the "ban" has resurfaced

The debate is fueled by a "bundle of risks" associated with social media. These include designs that promote addiction, aesthetic ideals that lead to excessive comparison, accidental exposure to extreme or violent content, and opaque data usage. Particularly concerning is the design that makes it hard to stop using social media, potentially affecting adolescents' sleep, academics, and self-esteem—concerns that are driving political action.


However, the focus this time is not on "social media as a bad place," but rather on the perspective that "the mechanisms of social media are harsh on children." Features like "infinite scroll" and "auto-play" that encourage addiction, along with recommendation algorithms that accelerate radicalization, are seen as structural issues rather than just content problems, leading to more concrete regulatory proposals.


Germany's "phased approach"

In Germany, attention is focused on multiple proposals that draw lines based on age. The debate reveals two main directions.


One approach is a stronger "ban for those under a certain age." The CDU is advancing discussions on banning those under 16. Another is the "phased approach" proposed by the SPD, where those under 14 are generally prohibited from using social media, and a "youth version" of social media is provided for those aged 14-16, removing elements that enhance dependency, such as recommendation features and infinite scroll.


The concept of a "youth version" is symbolic. Instead of outright exclusion, it weakens the system while retaining the benefits of communication and interaction, removing highly stimulating features. Additionally, the idea of making platforms responsible for age verification, with parental consent as a condition, is also being considered. The discussion is shifting from "discipline" to "design responsibility."


The EU's vision for "regional rules" and digital ID

The discussion is not limited to Germany. Several European countries are considering similar strengthening measures, and a unified direction is being sought at the EU level. If the EU institutionalizes age restrictions as regional rules, regulations in this large market could become a global standard.


A key aspect of this is the mechanism for age verification. The success of social media regulation hinges on "how to verify age." However, this creates a paradox. While stricter age verification is intended to protect children, it necessitates collecting more extensive personal information. The balance between anonymity and privacy, and identity verification for safety, often becomes a tug-of-war. The EU's push for the use of digital IDs is a reflection of this dilemma.


Challenges to effectiveness: "loopholes" and "practical realities"

Australia's precedent has shown the gap between creating regulations and implementing them. Just because a system is in place doesn't mean minors will completely disappear from social media. They can borrow family devices, fake their age, or switch to other apps—there are countless ways to circumvent the rules. As a result, while surface-level statistics may improve, the reality might become more hidden and harder to see.


Moreover, the challenge is that social media has become not just "entertainment" but "life infrastructure." Maintaining friendships, school and club communications, community activities, and accessing educational content are all part of it. A blanket ban on minors could distance them from necessary information and communities. The argument that a ban could lead to "isolation" rather than "protection" remains strong.


"Children's rights" vs. "adults' convenience"

As the debate over regulation heats up, "children's rights" are often overlooked. Is there a risk that, under the guise of safety, young people's opportunities for expression and participation are being narrowed? Are the voices of those directly affected being left behind to reassure politicians and parents? Especially as age verification becomes stricter, society might move closer to one where "proof of identity" is constantly required for social media access. This is not just a matter for minors but could also change the online space for adults.


On the other hand, the urgency of not leaving things as they are is understandable. Schools and families struggle to counteract the highly stimulating content optimized by algorithms. If individual family efforts have their limits, then changing the "design" through rules might be the only option—this policy thinking leads to "bans" and "youth versions."


Reactions on social media: Supporters say "finally, politics is moving"

 

On social media, supporters' voices are relatively straightforward. "If there are age restrictions for tobacco and alcohol, there should be restrictions for highly addictive social media," "It's better if it's a rule because kids don't listen to parents," and "Welcome stopping recommendations and infinite scroll; those are the toughest" are common reactions.


The expectation for a "youth version" is particularly high, with sentiments like "more realistic than a complete ban" and "holding the design side accountable is the right approach" spreading. There is an atmosphere of valuing intervention in algorithms and excessive features over outright bans.


Additionally, accounts believed to be from medical and educational professionals share specific concerns like "sleep deprivation," "spread of bullying," and "inducement to sexual exploitation," with posts supporting political intervention. Supporters' feelings are rooted in the exhaustion of the field, where "family efforts alone can't keep up."


Reactions on social media: Opponents say "it will only lead to more surveillance and superficiality"

Opponents focus on the side effects of age verification. "Ultimately, submitting ID will become the norm," "It's dangerous to give personal information to platforms," and "Only honest people will be inconvenienced by all the loopholes" are strong voices, especially in tech and legal communities.


Furthermore, concerns are repeatedly expressed that "banning will only push people to more dangerous places" and "people won't be able to consult openly on mainstream social media and will become isolated." The argument is that rather than excluding minors, it is more rational to mandate "safe design" for companies, increase transparency, and impose penalties for violations.


From the perspective of young people, there are reactions like "It's wrong for children to be punished for problems created by adults," "It's impossible to ban it uniformly when it's used for school and community communications," and "Social media is also a place of belonging." Here, there is a complex feeling that "there are dangers, but there are also benefits."

The focus is more on "design" and "verification" than "age"

Ultimately, the debate converges on two main points.


First, whether to "cut off social media by age" or "restrict it by function." Age bans are straightforward but have significant effectiveness and side effects. On the other hand, functional regulations (limiting recommendations, stopping infinite scroll, restricting ads and data collection) can address design responsibility, but the detailed design of regulations is challenging. Here, the "youth version" appears attractive as a compromise.


Second, how to handle age verification. The stricter it is, the more privacy concerns increase, and if it's too lenient, loopholes proliferate. Using public digital IDs is a well-organized system, but some suspect it leads to increased surveillance of society as a whole. Technical solutions become choices about societal values.


What will happen next

In Germany, not only are there discussions within political parties, but state authority and EU-level coordination are also involved, so a direct path to "total prohibition" is not guaranteed. Nevertheless, Australia's precedent has sounded the starting gun, and the creation of rules regarding "children and social media" has become established as a political issue in Europe.


A realistic scenario moving forward is that while the pros and cons of a total ban are debated, "functional regulations" such as safety design obligations for platforms, default settings according to age, transparency of recommendation algorithms, and strengthening parental tools will first be accumulated.


Ultimately, the remaining question is, "To what extent should we 'normalize proof' in daily life to protect children?" Social media regulation is not only a children's issue but also a debate about redrawing the boundaries of freedom and governance in a digital society.


Source URL

Related Articles