Sign in Subscribe
internet governance

See No Evil, Speak No Evil, Hear No Evil

A look at the facts surrounding the debate on social media bans.

See No Evil, Speak No Evil, Hear No Evil
Photo by Joao Tzanno / Unsplash

By Elisa Lindinger, co-published with SUPERRR.

“Personality deficits and problems in social behavior” – this is what Chancellor Merz claims is caused by excessive social media use among children. The SPD (Social Democratic Party of Germany) proposes comprehensive technical measures that, according to Justice Minister Hubig, will allow children to grow up “without cyberbullying, constant comparison, or beauty ideals” – with the implicit assumption that these problems are unique to the internet. Both politicians agree that a social media ban for children under 14 (or 16) would make many things better. Let’s take a detailed look at the assumptions, facts, and contexts behind the ban debate. 

The Thesis: Children are Suffering

Studies clearly show that, on average, children’s mental health is worse today than before the pandemic. The authors of the study cite a state of “permanent crisis” as the reason for this, caused by factors such as the climate crisis, social isolation due to school closures and curfews, pressure to perform at school, constant exposure to news about wars and more. The cost of living crisis, and subsequent lack of financial resources available to parents also have a major impact on children's health. 

Many structural causes contribute to the fact that, statistically speaking, children today are more likely to suffer from mental illness: financial poverty (almost 15% of children in Germany and 21% of children in the UK grow up in relative poverty), discrimination and inequality, global instability and a growing sense of powerlessness. It’s no wonder they’re struggling. 

In addition, while previous generations were often able to move around independently in public spaces even at a young age, the lives of children today are heavily structured, controlled, and regulated by adults. Their range of movement has decreased dramatically in recent decades, and spaces where they can act independently and without supervision are becoming rare. 

The Supposed Cause: Online Social Networks

Under these circumstances, it’s hardly surprising that social media has become an important alternative space for children to cultivate friendships and find information and inspiration. And once there, they encounter sensationalist content as well as bad news from around the world. And the ranking algorithms of the big tech platforms give preference to such content because it increases the amount of time users spend on the platforms. More time, more advertising, more profit. Despite that, some of the information they see there is real, and important. Denying children access to information – especially information that will shape their future – is like putting a bandage over their eyes so they can't see the wound on their hand.

The scientific basis for how exactly social media use affects the psyche is thin, and evidence-based policy has long since given way to the perceived truths of public debate. Popular nonfiction books, most notably Jonathan Haidt's “The Anxious Generation” portray social media use as the cause of the mental health crisis of an entire generation. Studies, even more studies, and attempts by scientists to explain that this exaggerated diagnosis is neither globally valid nor can the causal role of social media be proven, unfortunately receive significantly less attention.

Children themselves want contact with friends, digital participation, and platforms that work better for them. The majority of children are against a ban; the older they get, the more they want to set the rules for how they use social media together with their parents. Fear and helplessness seem to lie primarily with the adults – perhaps it’s parents, not children, who are the real “Anxious Generation”? 

But all these points are quickly ignored in discussions about social media bans: children's right to participation and support; their desire to discuss and negotiate rules with their parents as part of growing up; and the fact that social media bans hide the real problems – global and social crises – instead of solving them. 

The Fallacy: a Social Media Ban Works

One phrase comes up often in this debate: “We have to do something.” The desire is understandable, but a blanket ban is a knee-jerk reaction that doesn’t address the real problems. A comparison: when there’s a lot of traffic on a road, we don’t lock children up at home for the foreseeable future. Instead, we make the roads safer with traffic lights, crossings and 30 km/h speed limits – thus making it safer for everyone.

The EU had considered the equivalent of some digital crosswalks and speed limits with its data protection and platform regulations, but now it is backtracking as part of its deregulation agenda. Not to mention that we’re letting major social networks off the hook by banning children from social media, instead of forcing them to change their practices. 

Much of what is described as harmful to children is actually harmful to us all. Why don't we allow ourselves to demand a digital world that doesn't just want to profit from us and our time? Perhaps because we’re so caught up in the logic and inevitability of the big platforms that we can no longer even allow ourselves to imagine anything else. But this is not enough. It leaves politics lacking in vision and ultimately it is ineffective. It regulates and solidifies the status quo, instead of uplifting better alternatives.

A social media ban also means protecting children without offering them an alternative, all while we adults happily continue to indulge in surveillance capitalism right before their eyes. That simply can't work. A debate about child protection and children's rights online begins with listening: What kind of world do children and young people want today? And what role does technology play in it, if it were up to them? 

Listening to their answers, seeing problems in all their complexity, and talking about alternatives—all of this is far more time-consuming than a ban. But it is the only way to give children what they themselves demand and what they are legally entitled to. 

Further perspectives: 

What I’ve written here focuses on the beliefs behind the debate for social media bans and what really lies behind them, but this is by no means the end of the story. Here are a few assessments from a technical, digital policy, children's rights, and social policy perspective:

  • Morgan Briggs writes for Internet Exchange on the social media ban debate in the UK.  
  • D64 explains why the EUID wallet is not a good solution for age verification and why national social media bans conflict with EU law.
  • The German Child Protection Association is against fixed age limits, and the German Social Welfare Association considers them “disrespectful to young people.” 
  • According to the German Education Foundation, a ban “does not do justice to the complex realities of digital environments and, in the long term, weakens the rights, resilience, and trust of young people.”
  • 390 security and privacy researchers from 30 countries call for a moratorium on age assurance checks.
  • The German Children's Fund provides constructive approaches for action and calls for “realistic policy approaches that both hold platforms accountable and provide safe digital spaces for young people and strengthen their resilience.”
  • The Center for European Policy Analysis explains why social media bans enforced with age verification systems make European platform alternatives almost impossible, thereby strengthening Big Tech. 

Elisa Lindinger is the Co-Founder of SUPERRR, a Berlin-based non-profit working to reframe the role of digital technologies, to be in service of justice and hope. Elisa bridges technology, the arts, and the humanities, focusing her research on the social impact of emerging technologies and feminist interventions to power imbalances in tech.

FabRiders' Session Design Lab

Conference and staff retreat season is fast approaching, and many of us are getting ready to design gatherings that genuinely support learning, reflection, and strategy, whether that’s at RightsCon or internal convenings and away days.

FabRiders' Session Design Lab, facilitated by IX contributor Dirk Slater, runs from 24–25 March (3–6 pm UTC). It is a hands-on, online space to turn any kind of session idea – workshops, retreats, coalition meetings, community calls, conferences – into an engaging, participatory design that really works for the people in the room. I took this course ahead of facilitating our successful session on Encryption and Feminism and I highly recommend it!

Learn More and Register

Want to appear here? Sponsor a newsletter.

Support the Internet Exchange

If you find our emails useful, consider becoming a paid subscriber! You'll get access to our members-only Signal community where we share ideas, discuss upcoming topics, and exchange links. Paid subscribers can also leave comments on posts and enjoy a warm, fuzzy feeling.

Not ready for a long-term commitment? You can always leave us a tip.

Become A Paid Subscriber

Open Social Web

Internet Governance

Digital Rights

Technology for Society

 Privacy and Security

Upcoming Events

Careers and Funding Opportunities

Opportunities to Get Involved

What did we miss? Please send us a reply or write to editor@exchangepoint.tech.

💡
Want to see some of our week's links in advance? Follow us on Mastodon, Bluesky or LinkedIn, and don't forget to forward and share!

Read next

Comments ()