CIVICUS discusses moves to restrict social media access for children and young people with Goran Rizaov, journalist and Media and Information Integrity Programme coordinator at the Metamorphosis Foundation, a North Macedonian civil society organisation that works on accountability, digital rights and media development.

Governments in several countries have moved to ban or restrict social media access based on age limits, citing concerns about addiction, exposure to harmful content and mental health impacts. Civil society organisations and experts question the effectiveness of these bans and their impact on digital rights, and warn that they risk shifting responsibility away from social media platforms and onto young people and their families.

Why are governments moving to restrict children and young people’s social media access?

Australia was the first to act, banning people under 16 from 10 major platforms, including Facebook, Instagram, TikTok and YouTube last December. Greece has since announced a ban for under-15s, set to take effect in January 2027, and France has proposed a similar law for the same age group. Other European countries, including Spain, are considering similar measures and some are calling for a European Union (EU)-wide legislative framework.

These models rely on age verification mechanisms, but differ in who is responsible for enforcing them. In Australia, platforms must verify users’ ages themselves, using a combination of AI-based estimation and third-party tokens. In Greece, the government is taking direct control. A state-run app called Kids Wallet will block access to restricted platforms on a child’s device.

Social media platforms are designed with one goal in mind: making profit. To do so, they need to keep users online and engaged, and the younger, the better. But this comes at a cost. This model has fuelled a rise in disinformation, hate speech and the misuse of children’s data, and shapes how young people think, learn and concentrate. The consequences can be severe. In the USA, major platforms have been fined millions of dollars for misusing children’s data, and in North Macedonia, children have been lured into illegal activities, including human trafficking, through social media. The question is no longer whether something should be done, but how.

Do these bans work?

Banning something on the internet is not straightforward. Platforms already have rules prohibiting accounts for children under 13, yet these are widely unenforced. In Australia, where the ban is already in force, teenagers have found ways around it by using VPNs, which are free and easy to access. And even if the ban works, it may push young people towards less regulated spaces and platforms not covered by these bans that have far worse records on hate speech and unlawful content.

Internet access is a human right, and social media, for all its flaws, remains an important source of information and a tool for communication. Young people should not be cut off from it. The solution can’t be to turn off social media, but to make it safer.

What is the Metamorphosis Foundation’s position?

We don’t support blanket bans because we don’t believe they will solve the issue. Instead of holding platforms accountable, these bans shift responsibility onto victims, requiring children to submit personal data to the companies that already profit from it. That is not a solution; it’s a gift to the industry.

Metamorphosis is pushing for a different approach, urging regulation and, specifically, the full implementation of the EU’s Digital Services Act (DSA), which already provides a framework for holding platforms accountable. The DSA places responsibility where it belongs, on the companies that profit from their users’ data and attention. They should be held responsible for hate speech, the content they recommend and the impacts on children.

The problem is that the DSA hasn’t been fully implemented, and it doesn’t apply to countries that are not yet EU members, including North Macedonia. We are working to influence authorities to adopt its standards, because platforms must be held accountable regardless of where they operate.

What should governments do?

Protecting children online requires two things: holding companies accountable and equipping young people to navigate the digital world.

The first step is regulation that targets platforms, not users. Governments should propose, adopt and implement frameworks that place obligations on companies rather than burdening children and their families. The risk, of course, is that regulation can be weaponised to restrict freedom of expression. This is where civil society has a critical role. It must be part of the process, hold social media companies accountable and ensure these frameworks are built to protect people, not curtail their rights.

Governments should also invest in education. Critical thinking, digital literacy and media literacy must be central to how we educate young people. Societies with strong media literacy are far less susceptible to online manipulation.

These bans are not the solution. But they have done one useful thing: they have opened a conversation that was long overdue. At least young people, parents and governments are talking about the dangers of social media. Now we need to make sure that conversation leads somewhere meaningful.

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.