In Australia, a ban on social media for people under the age of 16 has been enacted. In the Netherlands, calls for an age limit are also growing. But does such a measure really solve the underlying problems? We don’t think so.

Young people and social media

Recently, we participated in a roundtable discussion in the Dutch Parliament on online children's rights. During this meeting, politicians and experts expressed their concerns about young people on social media. And rightly so: research by the Dutch Children's Ombudspersonsee the report here shows that more than half of girls sometimes feel unsafe online. Additionally, investigative journalists have shownCheck the article here how TikTok users can easily fall into an “eating disorder trap” and how young people often regret impulsive online purchases. These research findings call for action, but what is the right approach?

Age limit and age verification

A common solution is to impose a strict age limit, such as banning social media use until the age of 16. While many platforms currently enforce a minimum age of 13, this limit is not legally binding and is easily bypassed by simply entering a different birthdate. A legal age limit would require strict age verification, as simply asking users their age is insufficiently reliable.

We have reservations about strict forms of age verification. The most reliable way to verify age is through an identity document. However, we do not want companies like Meta or Google to have access to our passports due to privacy concerns. By now, we know that Big Tech companies use our data solely to generate more profit, for example, through tracking-based advertisements. If they were given access to our passports, they could use that information for their own benefit. Even if they didn’t, your passport is private, and there’s no compelling reason to share it with commercial companies.

Another idea is to confirm age through institutions such as banks or a government digital ID system like DigiD. While this may seem safer, it still raises privacy concerns. Platforms could indirectly infer personal information, such as your exact date of birth: on the day you turn 16, your bank might notify Facebook that you’re now old enough. Facebook could then deduce your date of birth. Moreover, this system excludes people, such as those without a (valid) passport or those who cannot or do not want to trust any institution.

A strict age limit also has its substantive limitations. Not every 16-year-old is equally resilient or wise. A rigid age limit divides young people in a binary way, which does not always align with reality. And let’s not forget that adults are not immune to the harm caused by social media: they, too, struggle with smartphone addiction, online deception, and exposure to extreme content.

The real solution

Instead of focusing on age limits, we should address the root of the problem: the platforms themselves. Social media are designed to encourage addiction, display extreme content, and entice users into purchases or adopting certain beliefs. This harmful design impacts people of all ages.

The real solution lies in regulations that force social media to make their platforms less toxic. This means banning addictive mechanisms, manipulative algorithms, and harmful business models. By fundamentally reforming platforms, we can reduce the negative effects for both young people and adults—a win-win!

The first steps in this direction have already been taken with the Digital Services Act (DSA)Learn more about your platform rights and the Digital Markets Act (DMA), initiatives we have actively contributed to at Bits of Freedom. For example, the DSA requires platforms to offer algorithms that are not based on profiling. This is why you can now view posts from friends on Instagram in chronological order, making it far less addictive.

However, much work remains to be done. The European Commission is currently drafting consumer law regulations to counteract harmful platform designs, and we are, of course, getting involved!