The debate over child protection on social media has now entered a new phase. Following the legal disputes involving Meta and the discussion about “safety by design,” the question is not only how safer platforms should be designed, but also at what age a child should be allowed to access social media and under what conditions?
The international trend is clear. More and more countries are moving toward establishing a substantive digital age threshold, with 15 or 16 years of age at the center of the discussion. Australia has already adopted a particularly strict model for those under 16, while similar initiatives are being considered or promoted in a number of other countries. In Europe, the European Parliament has also come out in favor of a harmonized digital age limit of 16, with access permitted between the ages of 13 and 16 subject to parental consent.
ΣΧΕΤΙΚΑ ΑΡΘΡΑ
However, establishing a number alone does not solve the problem. What is the point of prohibiting access for those under 15 or 16 if a child can simply claim to be 18? This highlights the importance of age assurance—that is, effectively verifying the user’s age. The issue, however, creates a new legal paradox. In order to protect children’s privacy and safety, we risk creating mechanisms that require even greater collection of personal data. Who will verify age? What data will be used? Will it be stored? How can we avoid creating a mass digital identification infrastructure?
The answer lies in privacy-preserving age assurance technologies, which confirm that a user is above or below a specific age threshold without revealing more information than is necessary. The European Union is now moving in precisely this direction.
But even the most effective age verification isn’t enough. The real question is why a 14-year-old’s Instagram account should function the same way as a 35-year-old’s. Why should a child be exposed to the same degree of infinite scroll, autoplay, push notifications, behavioral profiling, visible popularity metrics, and algorithmic systems designed to maximize engagement?
This is perhaps the crux of the next major regulatory debate. Age should not merely determine whether someone can access a platform. It must also determine which platform they access.
The answer should not be an isolated national ban. What is needed is a Europe-wide coordinated framework that combines a meaningful digital age threshold, personal data protection, age-appropriate design, safe defaults, parental controls, and meaningful accountability on the part of the companies themselves. The question is not whether we will keep children out of the digital age. That is neither feasible nor desirable. The real question is whether we will continue to allow the digital age to be designed around children’s vulnerabilities
