Denmark's government aims to ban access to social media for children under 15

Perceived Harm of Social Media to Children

• Many compare current mainstream social media to addictive drugs, arguing it harms children’s mental health, attention, and social development.
• Some want even stricter rules than Denmark’s proposal: full smartphone bans under 13 or 15, or even 18–21, and nighttime bans for teens.
• Several teachers and parents report observable issues in classrooms (distraction, meme-fueled behavior, “brain rot”) and say phone bans at school already help.
• Others distinguish “algorithmic, engagement-optimized feeds” (TikTok, Reels, Shorts, etc.) as the main problem, not all online communication.

Parenting vs. State Control

• One camp: parents should simply say no; laws are “nanny state” overreach and absolve parents of responsibility.
• Counterpoint: this is a collective-action problem. If only a few parents restrict phones, their kids are socially isolated because peers organize life online.
• Some parents explicitly welcome legal backing so their kids aren’t “the only one without a phone.”

Age Verification & Digital ID

• Discussion focuses on EU-style digital IDs that can prove “over X” without revealing full identity (zero-knowledge proofs, NFC national IDs, MitID).
• Supporters: platforms can query “is user ≥15?” and get a boolean, avoiding mass data handover.
• Critics:
  • Risk of lock‑in to Google/Apple ecosystems and exclusion of alternative OS.
  • Potential logging of which sites are queried, enabling profiling of citizens’ browsing.
  • Fundamental difficulty of tying a proof to the actual human using the account and preventing ID “lending.”

Privacy, Surveillance, and “Chat Control”

• Strong suspicion that “for the children” age bans are a wedge for broader online identification and surveillance.
• Denmark’s role in pushing EU “chat control” is cited as evidence of deeper authoritarian ambitions.
• Long subthread disputes how expansive chat-control scanning is, whether judges meaningfully constrain it, and whether it effectively breaks end-to-end encryption.
• Fear that once infrastructure for age‑gating and ID is in place, it can be repurposed for content control and selective law enforcement.

Definition and Scope of “Social Media”

• Ambiguity over what will be covered: forums like HN, Discord, WhatsApp, games with chat, YouTube, school platforms, etc.
• Some propose thresholds (e.g., daily active users) or functional criteria (algorithmic feeds with infinite reach) to focus on large, addictive platforms.
• Concern that narrow naming misses future apps; overly broad rules could sweep in benign or niche communities.

Enforcement and Workarounds

• Questions on who is liable (platforms vs. parents), penalties, and whether global platforms will just block Danish minors or Danish users entirely.
• Many expect kids to bypass bans via foreign sites, extra devices, or public Wi‑Fi; others note alcohol/tobacco age laws are also imperfect but still useful.

Alternative or Complementary Policies

• Ideas include: banning or heavily restricting personalized ads, especially to minors; regulating recommendation algorithms; banning tracking of minors; stricter school phone bans; and legal codes of conduct for youth spaces with mandatory moderation.
• Some argue the real root is the ad-funded attention economy, and that targeting that incentive would help all ages, not just children.