In the past year, more than two dozen countries have proposed banning social media for large portions of their populations. Often framed as “child safety” measures, these laws are paving the way for mass surveillance and widespread censorship, contributing to what experts call a “global free speech recession.”
Australia led the way last year by banning social media for anyone under 16, inspiring other nations to follow. Germany’s ruling party announced its support for a ban, French President Emmanuel Macron called for banning social media for those under 15, and UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer has pushed for broad restrictions. Countries like Greece, the Philippines, Indonesia, Malaysia, Singapore, and Japan have also pursued similar online identity verification laws.
In the United States, over half of the states have passed or are considering online age verification laws. A package of 19 “child safety” bills, several mandating identity verification for social media, is set to advance in the House of Representatives soon. Major tech platforms like Meta, Google, and Discord have already begun adjusting their policies to comply with these regulations preemptively.
While social media bans might appear to protect children, they are ineffective and pose risks to both children and adults. There is little evidence that social media is causing a widespread mental health crisis among young people; in fact, studies often suggest the opposite. Removing online anonymity—an inevitable consequence when tech companies are forced to identify and block minors—makes it easier for governments to track and censor journalists, activists, and whistleblowers who rely on anonymity for safety.
Moreover, while some argue these laws would curb big tech’s influence, only the largest companies have the resources to bear the high costs of age verification systems. Smaller non-profit and independent platforms could be forced to shut down, further consolidating power among tech giants. Once established, mass surveillance systems could also be easily exploited by governments and malicious actors.
To genuinely address social media’s problems, we should start with comprehensive data privacy reforms and stronger consumer protections. Governments could also take steps to break up large tech companies and hold them accountable for anti-competitive practices. Lawmakers who claim to care about children could implement broader social and economic policies that meaningfully improve young people’s lives. Social media serves as a vital lifeline, especially for marginalized groups like LGBTQ+ youth. Any policies restricting online access should prioritize protecting the most vulnerable children and adults.
Implementing the proposed social media bans requires some form of age verification, which inevitably expands surveillance technology. Since algorithms cannot accurately determine age, verifying a user’s age involves collecting highly sensitive data or government documents to supplement biometric information. The laws under consideration do not always specify which systems will be used, but all available options raise significant privacy and safety concerns.
The fundamental problem with technological “age verification” is that it doesn’t truly exist. Humans don’t age linearly, and there is no physiological change on a person’s 16th or 18th birthday that would allow AI to pinpoint their exact age, particularly during puberty. As a result, age verification systems that rely on biometric data must also require government IDs or other sensitive personal information to link a user’s online profile to their real-world identity and confirm their age.
This approach not only enables major tech companies to gather even more personal data but also increases the risks of data breaches and misuse.Age verification laws not only harvest deeply personal data from children but also create significant cybersecurity risks. The information collected by these systems is not kept private. For example, last October, Discord experienced a major breach of identity data gathered by a contractor for age verification. This week, researchers also found that its age verification software has connections to investors involved in U.S. government surveillance.
These laws are also driven by a reactionary political movement. In the U.S., key groups lobbying for age verification include the Heritage Foundation—the right-wing think tank behind Project 2025—and the National Center on Sexual Exploitation (NCOSE). Formerly known as Morality in Media, NCOSE is a far-right activist organization with religious fundamentalist ties that has long campaigned to restrict “obscene” content online.
The timing of these laws is also linked to broader crackdowns on free expression and protest. In the U.S., the TikTok ban followed student protests against the atrocities in Gaza. Student activists have been vital in protecting immigrants from ICE detention, while the government has increased attacks on anonymous speech online, demanding tech companies hand over information on hundreds of anti-ICE social media accounts. In the UK, governments have repeatedly tried to suppress protests, often led by young people, over issues like the climate crisis and Gaza.
Ari Cohn, lead counsel for tech policy at the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE), noted that Germany’s push for social media age limits came right after police investigated people for insulting Chancellor Friedrich Merz on Facebook.
“All lawmakers claim they are enacting age verification to protect youth, but they ignore how it gives governments power to control and silence opposing speech, even punishing critics,” Cohn told me.
Instead of tackling the real causes of young people’s struggles, politicians worldwide are using their suffering to pass laws that strip away everyone’s rights. While protecting children online is important, age verification laws are not the solution.
These laws could turn the internet from a space of free expression into a fully monitored digital panopticon, where every online action is linked to your government ID. Once in place, this surveillance system will be abused, just like every past expansion of government surveillance and censorship. We must do everything possible to stop these laws and protect a free and open internet.
Taylor Lorenz is a technology journalist who writes the newsletter User Mag and is the author of the bestselling book Extremely Online: The Untold Story of Fame, Influence, and Power on the Internet.
Frequently Asked Questions
FAQs Potential Bans on Children Using Social Media
BeginnerLevel Questions
1 Why is there a push to ban kids from social media
Primarily due to growing concerns about mental health harms such as increased anxiety depression and body image issues linked to social media use Other reasons include exposure to cyberbullying inappropriate content data privacy risks and addictive design features
2 What age groups are these proposed bans targeting
Most proposals focus on children under 16 though the specific age varies Some laws and discussions aim to restrict access for those under 13 14 or 16 often requiring parental consent for use
3 Would a ban mean kids cant use the internet at all
No A social media ban is specific to platforms like TikTok Instagram and Snapchat It wouldnt restrict general internet use for education gaming or watching videos on nonsocial platforms
4 Isnt it already illegal for kids under 13 to have accounts
In many places yes However age verification is often easy to bypass and enforcement is challenging leading to millions of underage users New proposals seek stricter verification and higher age limits
Advanced ConsequenceFocused Questions
5 What are the potential serious consequences for everyone if we ban kids
A broad ban could have unintended ripple effects
For Kids It could cut off vital support networks especially for LGBTQ youth or those in isolated areas It may also hinder digital literacy development
For Platforms It could drastically alter business models reduce overall engagement and stifle innovation geared toward younger audiences
For Society It might create a digital divide where only wealthier or techsavvy families find workarounds It also shifts the entire responsibility to parents and lawmakers rather than forcing platforms to design safer spaces
6 Couldnt this harm education and creativity
Yes Many schools and educators use social media for projects communication and skillbuilding A blanket ban could remove a tool for creative expression collaborative learning and exposure to diverse ideas and cultures
7 What about parental rights Would this take away a parents choice
This is a major point of debate Some argue a ban is a necessary safety measure like
