Minors & Social Media: Is Banning the Right Approach?
Age Assurance: A Double-Edged Sword for Children’s Online Rights
The European Commission’s recent guidelines on ”age-appropriate design” for online services, while aiming too enhance child safety, raise meaningful concerns regarding the fundamental rights of children and teenagers. While some proposed measures, such as default privacy settings and effective content moderation, are beneficial for all users, the Commission’s apparent shift towards endorsing age verification as a primary tool for restricting access to online platforms presents a worrying precedent.
The initial draft of the guidelines viewed age checks primarily as a means to tailor online experiences to users’ ages. Though, the final version appears to consider “measures restricting access based on age” as an effective strategy for ensuring the privacy, safety, and security of minors. This marks a significant departure and possibly opens the door to broad age verification mandates.
This development is particularly surprising given the general consensus in Brussels that outright social media bans, like the one Australia is struggling to implement, are disproportionate. Under pressure from member states like France, Denmark, and Greece, the guidelines now include an opening for national legislation to set age limits for specific online services, including social media. This could lead to a patchwork of differing age restrictions across the EU, creating confusion and potentially limiting access for young people in inconsistent ways.
The Commission’s stance that age verification is “proportionate” whenever risks to minors cannot be mitigated by less intrusive measures is a cause for concern. This broad interpretation risks establishing a legal framework that prioritizes age verification over more comprehensive and rights-respecting solutions.
The fundamental issue is that such age restrictions, while seemingly protective, may inadvertently shift obligation away from platforms. If implementing age verification tools becomes the primary compliance mechanism, online service providers may have less incentive to invest in making their products and features genuinely safer for young users. Problematic privacy practices, inadequate content moderation, and business models reliant on data exploitation will remain unaddressed.
Moreover, assuming that teenagers will inevitably find ways to circumvent age restrictions, those who succeed will be left without any protections or age-appropriate online experiences. This approach fails to address the root causes of online harm and risks creating a digital divide where some young people are excluded while others navigate potentially unsafe environments without adequate safeguards.
Ultimately, while the intention to protect children online is commendable, the reliance on age assurance methods as a primary solution carries significant risks to children’s rights to privacy, data protection, free expression, details, and participation. A more holistic approach, focusing on platform accountability and the creation of inherently safer online environments for all users, is crucial to truly safeguarding the digital future of young people.