CIVICUS discusses the rising pattern of social media bans for youngsters with Marie-Ève Nadeau, Head of Worldwide Affairs of the 5Rights Basis, an organisation that promotes kids’s rights within the digital setting.
4 international locations have banned kids from accessing social media, 5 extra have handed legal guidelines awaiting implementation and round 40 extra are contemplating bans. What Australia started when it banned under-16s from 10 social media platforms is quickly changing into a worldwide pattern. Youngsters want safety from the documented harms attributable to early and heavy social media use, however whether or not bans supply efficient safety is a dwell query for policymakers worldwide.
Are social media bans an efficient method of defending kids?
Immediately, one in three web customers is a baby, and digital applied sciences more and more mediate all elements of their lives, from the classroom to the playground, from their first friendships to how they see themselves. As proof of harms and dangers mounts, lawmakers world wide are racing to impose age limits on kids’s entry to social media. The intuition to behave is true, however the present path dangers lacking the purpose.
The true situation is the circumstances kids face when on-line. Youngsters are rising up in a digital setting designed with out their distinct rights, wants and vulnerabilities in thoughts. This can be a deliberate selection. Tech corporations’ business models prioritise business achieve over kids’s security and wellbeing, intentionally embedding persuasive design, relentless engagement loops and extractive knowledge practices by default. Fixing this requires greater than blocking kids’s entry.
Age restrictions usually are not new, but their effectiveness stays inconclusive. Banning kids from particular companies whereas leaving the underlying system untouched lets tech corporations off the hook for recommender techniques that push dangerous content material, persuasive design that retains kids compulsively engaged and knowledge practices that exploit their consideration for revenue. Utilized in isolation, bans create an phantasm of safety whereas the identical dangerous design practices proceed unchallenged. Youngsters are pushed in direction of different unregulated environments, akin to AI chatbots, gaming platforms and academic expertise companies, the place they face equal dangers with even much less scrutiny.
What do these bans imply for youngsters’s rights to expression and knowledge?
Youngsters’s rights are interdependent and indivisible, and the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child General Comment No. 25 makes clear that every one kids’s rights apply totally within the digital setting. This contains the fitting to safety from hurt, but additionally to the rights of entry to info, expression and participation. In follow, tech corporations have made these rights conditional on the business surveillance, exploitation and manipulation of kids, eroding their privateness, security, crucial considering and company.
Age-based bans that prohibit entry with out addressing underlying design practices create a false selection between freedom and security. Youngsters want each safety from hurt and significant entry to expression, info and participation. Limiting entry with out reforming the techniques that embed threat fails to uphold the total vary of kids’s rights.
Who’s most harmed by these bans, and what gaps do they create?
Youngsters’s rights apply till the age of 18, but proposed restrictions typically solely cowl kids below 16 and a slim set of high-risk companies. This creates gaps. Youngsters above the age threshold, and those that circumvent poorly carried out restrictions, find yourself in unregulated areas outdoors the scope of bans.
Bans can even entrench inequality. Youngsters usually are not a homogeneous group, and people dealing with intersecting vulnerabilities linked to incapacity, gender, political opinion, race, faith or ethnic, nationwide or social origin could closely depend on digital areas for expression, id security and help.
On the identical time, engagement-based platform design typically rewards and amplifies divisive and dangerous content material, for instance on gender-based violence, heightening dangers for excluded communities. Blanket bans don’t create safer areas, nor remove these harms. As a substitute, they displace them to much less seen, much less regulated and even much less accountable areas. Efficient safety should guarantee kids can train their rights and have protected areas of help and group.
How does age verification work, and what does it imply for youngsters’s privateness?
Tech corporations routinely make investments closely in concentrating on promoting and personalising content material but fail to use the identical rigour to defending kids. Age assurance, an umbrella time period for each age estimation and age verification options, permits corporations to recognise the presence of kids and act accordingly. It have to be lawful, rights-respecting and proportionate to threat. Information assortment needs to be restricted to what’s strictly crucial to ascertain age, and used just for that objective.
International privateness regulators discovered that 24 per cent of companies lack any age assurance mechanism and 90 per cent of these counting on self-declaration are simply bypassed. But sturdy options exist. Australia’s age assurance technology trial demonstrates that privacy-preserving age verification can affirm age with out exposing id. Technical requirements, such because the 2089.1-2024 Standard for Online Age Verification printed by the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, present that independently audited frameworks, like these utilized in product security or prescription drugs, are each possible and crucial to make sure age assurance techniques are safe, proportionate and compliant.
For low-risk companies applicable for all customers, there needs to be no requirement to ascertain age. The place companies or functionalities current threat to kids, corporations ought to handle or mitigate particular high-risk options moderately than gatekeeping complete companies.
What ought to governments demand from platforms to guard kids?
Age restrictions have change into a part of a worldwide playbook, notably in knowledge safety regimes just like the US Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA), which units 13 as the brink for consent to knowledge assortment. Poor implementation and enforcement of COPPA and comparable legal guidelines have allowed tech corporations to cover behind obscure disclaimers whereas failing to meaningfully prohibit entry and making the most of embedding threat into kids’s digital experiences.
There’s one other method ahead. The precedence needs to be holding tech corporations accountable, not banning kids from the digital world. Meaning banning exploitative practices, regulating dangerous options akin to addictive design, manipulative recommender techniques and extractive knowledge practices, and requiring privateness, security and age-appropriate design because the baseline.
It additionally means shifting to systemic threat administration: corporations needs to be legally required to anticipate, assess and mitigate how their merchandise expose kids to threat. This baseline already exists in different high-risk sectors akin to aviation, meals security and medication, the place merchandise should reveal security earlier than reaching the market.
A rising world consensus factors to a transparent path ahead: embedding age-appropriate design, requiring child rights impact assessments, mandating privateness and security by design and default, establishing effective enforcement mechanisms and making certain unbiased auditing. Over 55 leading organisations and experts from all continents have endorsed the ten best-practice principles developed by the 5Rights Basis.
CIVICUS interviews a variety of civil society activists, consultants and leaders to assemble numerous views on civil society motion and present points for publication on its CIVICUS Lens platform. The views expressed in interviews are the interviewees’ and don’t essentially replicate these of CIVICUS. Publication doesn’t suggest endorsement of interviewees or the organisations they characterize.
GET IN TOUCH
Website
BlueSky
Instagram
LinkedIn
Spotify
Twitter
Marie-Ève Nadeau/BlueSky
Marie-Ève Nadeau/LinkedIn
SEE ALSO
Child social media bans: a growing global problem CIVICUS Lens 05.Might.2026
Technology: Innovation without accountability CIVICUS | State Of Civil Society Report 2026
North Macedonia: ‘The solution cannot be to cut children off social media, but to make it safer’ CIVICUS Lens | Interview with Goran Rizaov 23.Apr.2026
© Inter Press Service (20260515171520) — All Rights Reserved. Original source: Inter Press Service