CIVICUS discusses Greece’s social media ban with a member of the Child Rights International Network (CRIN), an international human rights organisation that works to advance the rights of all children.

Greece plans to ban children under 15 from social media platforms including Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat and TikTok, with the law set to enter into force on 1 January 2027. Prime Minister Kyriakos Mitsotakis has described the measure as ‘difficult but necessary’ and is pushing for a European Union (EU)-wide age verification framework. The Greek ban will be enforced through Kids Wallet, a state digital identity system linked to children’s civil registry records. Civil society and digital rights groups have raised concerns about privacy, surveillance and the effectiveness of blanket bans as a substitute for platform regulation.

Is a blanket ban the right approach for child safety online?

A blanket ban is not the right approach for Greece or any other country. Bans don’t work. Australia was the first country to implement a social media ban for under-16s. A wide majority of Australian children still have accounts on banned platforms. Around half say the ban has made no difference to their online safety, while some report feeling less safe. There was no drop in harm reports to the regulator. Instead, children migrated to unbanned platforms like gaming services, where reports of abuse increased. The Australian ban is turning into a game of whack-a-mole.

Even if blanket bans worked, they are the wrong approach because they infringe children’s rights. The impact of social media on children’s rights is complex. Evidence doesn’t support claims that social media is inherently harmful. Social media poses both benefits and risks to the full range of children’s rights, including mental health and protection from violence. Blanket restrictions are disproportionate. A ban removes the incentive to make platforms safe for children, so those children who manage to gain access find themselves in even lower-quality environments. Some could be driven to the dark web.

Children need better protection online, not to be removed from social media.

What privacy and surveillance risks does the Kids Wallet system pose?

Kids Wallet ties age verification to a child’s civil registry identity through a parent’s tax credentials. It functions as both a digital ID and a parental control app, enabling parents to restrict children’s access to online services.

Children have the right to privacy. As their capacities evolve, children should be able to make their own decisions about how to exercise their rights, including privacy. The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child recognises this. A mandatory state age verification and parental control app undermines that principle.

Additionally, there’s potential for function creep and political repurposing, for example, for surveillance. Whoever controls the app can know and control what children do online. Security seems inadequate as well. Greek media reported a critical vulnerability in the Gov.gr Wallet, which authorities took three weeks to fix. Mandating the use of insecure apps to handle sensitive data is unacceptable.

The deeper question is about citizenship in a democratic society. How does gatekeeping by a state app shape children’s understanding of what citizens can do in society? How will it affect their agency and attitudes towards state authority? These are not just privacy questions. They go to the heart of how children develop as citizens.

How will this ban affect vulnerable children?

Children are not all the same. They have diverse backgrounds, identities and needs, and a social media ban doesn’t affect them equally. Policymakers are operating on unstated assumptions that ignore reality.

The ban assumes children have access to their own smartphones, ignoring lower-income families who must share devices. It assumes children have identity documents for age verification, leaving the undocumented at risk of marginalisation. It assumes children can quickly grasp how the ban works, excluding those from under-resourced backgrounds lacking digital literacy skills. Most critically, it assumes children use social media only for entertainment, ignoring that for those from rural or remote areas and disadvantaged communities, social media is a vital source of information, support and connection. Cutting them off from social media isolates them even further.

If Australia is anything to go by, Greek children from families with more financial resources and higher digital literacy will quickly circumvent the ban through various workarounds. Those from lower-income backgrounds will not. This creates a two-tiered reality, reinforcing existing inequalities. The ban would hit hardest exactly where resources are already scarcest.

What role should civil society play?

The immediate priority is advocacy – informing policymakers and the public about the serious problems with the ban and shifting the narrative from bans as solutions towards workable, rights-respecting alternatives.

If the ban becomes law, civil society should document how it is applied through surveys and interviews with children, parents and others affected. Detailed data can show how the law disproportionately affects specific groups, such as children from disadvantaged communities.

Civil society should also be prepared to challenge the ban in court, supporting those who want to argue it violates their rights under Greek law and international treaties, including the Convention on the Rights of the Child. Reporting to international treaty bodies such as the Committee on the Rights of the Child is another avenue.

Given Greece’s documented press freedom concerns, civil society must monitor whether the Kids Wallet system remains limited to age verification or is repurposed for broader state surveillance. Sustained civil society pressure can contribute to the repeal of a law even after it is passed.

What should the EU do?

The EU might be headed towards social media age restrictions, with the EU Commission potentially proposing a so-called ‘social media delay’ this summer. But this course is neither inevitable nor correct. The Council of Europe’s Human Rights Commissioner and many experts across the continent have urged caution in imposing sweeping bans. Any response to issues children face online must be workable and rights-respecting. A ban is neither.

While Greece is wrong to want to export a blanket ban, its instinct to coordinate at EU level is sound. The European Commission has already started taking action against major platforms under the Digital Services Act. It’s expected to put forward the Digital Fairness Act to tackle deceptive and addictive design, exploitative personalisation and other practices that harm all users, children and adults alike.

Regulating platforms, not banning children, is the path forward. Measures should address the root causes of the problems policymakers are concerned about. They should tackle the business models and design choices that create harm and they should respect children’s rights.

CIVICUS interviews a wide range of civil society activists, experts and leaders to gather diverse perspectives on civil society action and current issues for publication on its CIVICUS Lens platform. The views expressed in interviews are the interviewees’ and do not necessarily reflect those of CIVICUS. Publication does not imply endorsement of interviewees or the organisations they represent.