France passes bill to ban social media use by under-15s

Original Article ↗ Hacker News Discussion ↗

Scope and legislative status

  • The bill bans access to social media for under‑15s, but some note it still awaits French Senate approval and may be legally fragile under EU digital rules (DSA).
  • The text is worded to “ban access” rather than explicitly regulate platforms, but in practice would push large platforms to implement age verification, with potential EU‑level enforcement and challenges.

Support for the ban

  • Supporters argue social media is analogous to drugs, gambling, or cigarettes for developing brains: highly addictive, engineered to maximize engagement, and especially harmful to teens’ attention, sleep, and mental health.
  • Some see existing moderation and regulatory efforts as failed, with platforms exploiting loopholes and fines too small to matter; simple, bright‑line bans are viewed as more enforceable.
  • A subset would go further (e.g., higher age limits, or much broader restrictions) and compare age limits to alcohol laws: you don’t ban adults, but you do set a minimum age.

Opposition and “moral panic” concerns

  • Critics see it as a moral panic similar to past fears over TV, video games, D&D, or comics, with weak or confounded evidence that social media is a major driver of teen mental illness.
  • They point to research claiming social media is a relatively minor factor compared to family history, adversity, and school/family stress, and note that even some internal platform studies don’t prove causality.
  • Others emphasize benefits: information access, political organizing, and social support networks that would be cut off for youth.

Ban vs. regulation of platforms

  • Many argue the core harms come from specific design choices: infinite scroll, opaque ranking algorithms, rage‑bait amplification, hyper‑targeted ads, and scam‑heavy ad markets.
  • Proposals include: banning infinite scroll, forcing open algorithms or user‑selectable feeds, limiting ads, stronger liability for content and scams, and youth‑specific “simple” feeds.
  • Some see the French approach as “we’ve tried nothing and we’re out of ideas,” predicting toxic dynamics will simply migrate to the next unregulated medium.

Defining “social media”

  • There is extensive debate over where to draw the line: are old‑style forums, this very site, game networks (Steam, Xbox Live), or comment sections also “social media”?
  • One camp stresses that forums were topic‑focused, non‑algorithmic “villages,” unlike modern engagement‑driven feeds; another notes that transgressive online content and manipulative media long predate TikTok/Instagram.
  • Several warn that overly broad legal definitions could effectively bar under‑15s from large classes of interactive sites, not just major social apps.

Privacy, ID verification, and anonymity

  • A major concern is that enforcing age limits will require ID checks for everyone, normalizing KYC‑style identity verification across the web and eroding anonymity.
  • Examples are given of platforms already demanding ID, and of being blocked from sensitive content (e.g., political violence) without verified identity.
  • Some view “protecting children” as a convenient pretext for building infrastructure to track users and end anonymous speech, with fears it will later expand to “every site with user‑generated content” and even VPNs.
  • Others point to zero‑knowledge proofs and EU “mini‑wallet”/digital ID initiatives that could prove age without revealing identity, but skeptics doubt real‑world implementations and auditability.

Children’s rights, development, and parental roles

  • There is disagreement over whether teens’ distress when cut off from social media reflects addiction‑like withdrawal, social exclusion, or normal reaction to rights being restricted.
  • Some parents describe intentionally keeping their children away from smartphones and TV, and want the state to “do its part” against powerful “exploiters.”
  • Others argue that bans infantilize youth, ignore parental responsibility and broader family/societal dysfunction, and remove opportunities for gradual, supervised exposure.

Political and power dynamics

  • A faction argues the real driver is political control and narrative management, especially fear of platforms like TikTok enabling uncensored views (e.g., on wars or right‑wing ideas) that bypass schools and legacy media.
  • Counterpoints note that major social platforms are themselves owned by members of the “ruling class,” so it’s unclear they are genuinely threatened; some big platforms even support age‑limit legislation.

EU competence and French context

  • Commenters debate the role of the Conseil d’État and EU supremacy: some expect EU law to limit the bill’s effect, others resent EU intrusion into national legislation.
  • A few frame the law as culturally “French,” reflecting a strong tendency to legislate behavior rather than rely on individual or parental judgment.

Long‑term trajectory

  • Several worry this is a step toward a non‑neutral, ID‑gated internet where anonymity is rare and many services are inaccessible without government‑linked credentials.
  • Others predict youth will work around bans, driving usage “underground” without actually eliminating harms.