What does it mean to ban social media under 15?
In her analysis of the Blog du Modérateur article on banning social media for under‑15s, Nina raises a crucial question. Is the solution really to ban social media under 15, or should we focus on better supporting young people in their digital lives? I share her intuition that the issue cannot be reduced to a simple “for or against”.
I would like to go further on three points.
First, the real scale of the risks.
Second, the practical limits of the ban.
Third, the place we give – or do not give – to young people in this debate.
The current French debate on whether to ban social media under 15 shows how complex youth protection really is.
1. Where I agree with Nina: an underestimated public‑health issue
Nina reminds us that social media are no longer just entertainment tools but key spaces for socialisation, self‑expression and access to information. She also highlights serious downsides: harassment, blackmail and misinformation. On this point, I fully agree with her, and recent data support her view.
In January 2026, the French food, environmental and occupational health agency (Anses) published a highly alarming opinion on social networks and teenagers. It links heavy use to increased anxiety, sleep disorders, body‑image issues and even suicidal thoughts, with girls being particularly vulnerable. The agency mentions “numerous negative effects” that justify a real shift in how platforms are governed. In this context, it is easier to understand why MP Laure Miller pushed a bill through the National Assembly to ban social media under 15, which was adopted at first reading by 116 votes to 23.
Like Nina, I think it would be naive to downplay these risks in the name of a vague “digital freedom” for children. The Australian example she cites points in the same direction. By raising the age limit to 16, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese’s government chose a highly protective stance. This decision led to around 4.7 million underage accounts being shut down.
2. Where I add nuance: the illusion of a hard cut at 15
However, Nina also asks a key question. Does a ban really protect children, or does it hide a deeper issue linked to our digital habits across all age groups? This is where I want to nuance things further. I also want to question what it really means, in practice, to ban social media under 15.
On the one hand, the ban sends a strong political signal. On the other hand, implementing it is not simple. As Blog du Modérateur explains, France must comply with the EU Digital Services Act (DSA). Law‑makers therefore cannot simply pile extra legal obligations onto platforms. The Conseil d’État has made this clear. Member states may define a minimum age of access. They cannot directly impose additional requirements on online platforms beyond the EU framework. As a result, the French bill uses a kind of “ricochet” strategy. It makes accounts held by under‑15s illegal under national law, in order to push platforms to delete them through the DSA mechanisms.
On top of this comes the very concrete problem of age verification. The Ministry for Digital Affairs mentions two options: submitting an ID document with a selfie, or using AI‑based facial analysis to estimate age. Even if a trusted third party ensures “double anonymity”, these systems raise serious questions about privacy. Determined teenagers can still bypass them. Debates about age checks on adult websites already show this. On this point, I fully share Nina’s concern about “well‑known circumvention strategies”: lying about your age, using an adult’s account, VPNs, and so on.
In other words, a hard line at 15 to ban social media under 15 may offer only partial protection. Without changes to platform design, recommendation algorithms and business models, little will actually change. Problematic use patterns do not only affect under‑15s. They also concern 15–18‑year‑olds and adults, as Anses underlines in its broader report.
3. Where I extend Nina’s view: thinking about what social media also bring
Nina rightly notes that social media have become a central space in collective life, and that excluding under‑15s from it raises a real question of inclusion. I believe this deserves even more emphasis, especially when we discuss whether we should ban social media under 15.
For some young people who are geographically isolated, bullied at school or questioning their identity, online platforms can provide support communities, information resources. They also offer spaces to speak that are hard to find offline. Research on youth mental health shows that peer support in online communities can reduce loneliness and encourage help‑seeking behaviour. A blanket move to ban social media under 15, without offering safe alternatives (moderated communities, platforms designed “by design” for minors), cuts off access to these spaces without tackling the root causes of distress.
Here I fully agree with Nina’s call to move the debate beyond a simple “for or against the ban”. The real question becomes: how can we preserve the potential benefits of social media (support, social ties, creativity, information) while strongly reducing the risks (addiction, exposure to harmful content, harassment)?
4. Regulating instead of choosing between “all or nothing”
One of Nina’s key contributions is to sketch out a third way: digital‑literacy education, stronger platform accountability, age‑appropriate parental controls and real parental support. I would argue this is not an alternative to the idea to ban social media under 15, but the condition for such a law to work.
Anses, for instance, recommends that minors should only access platforms configured by default to protect their health. This includes limited notifications, stricter recommender systems, and reinforced reporting and blocking tools. The public policy portal Vie publique also stresses the need for media and information literacy in school curricula, so that teenagers learn to spot misinformation, hateful content and attention‑capture mechanisms.
Public authorities cannot just rely on a single legal text. Resources for schools to tackle cyberbullying, teacher training, and accessible digital‑mediation services for parents are equally decisive. Without this broader ecosystem, any attempt to ban social media under 15 risks becoming a largely symbolic measure, easily circumvented and socially unequal.
In response to Nina’s article, I would say we share the same starting intuition: the question is not simply whether we are for or against banning social media before 15, but what kind of digital society we want for tomorrow’s teenagers. Where I push her reflection a bit further is in highlighting a double challenge: genuinely reducing risks by transforming how platforms operate, and at the same time preserving what social media can positively offer to the most vulnerable young people. Between the naivety of “everything online is good” and the temptation of “ban everything”, the most demanding path remains the one Nina already outlines. We need to educate, hold platforms accountable and regulate in depth, rather than relying on a single age threshold to ban social media under 15