Governments across Europe are running into a hard lesson about regulating social media for young people. Simply banning children from existing platforms is proving legally and practically difficult. This week a new European movement offered a different answer: build something better.
Bans meet the courts
Australia’s world-first prohibition on under-16s holding social media accounts is being defended this week before the country’s High Court. Reddit and the rights group Digital Freedom Project argue the law breaches an implied constitutional freedom of political communication. Since December, five million accounts have been closed. Ministers concede the ban has not worked as well as hoped, because many children are getting past age checks.
France has already lost a comparable fight. In August, its Constitutional Council struck down the core of the country’s under-15 ban. The court found it too broad and too thin on safeguards for the age checks that every user, adults included, would face. President Emmanuel Macron has asked the government to draft a narrower version.
Even so, other governments are pressing on. Greece plans an under-15 ban from January 2027 and Denmark from July 2027. Spain is debating an under-16 limit, and the United Kingdom is expected to introduce its own restrictions next year.
Brussels adds its own proposal
At EU level, the European Commission put forward its Kids Act in September. Under the proposal, children under 13 would have no social media accounts. Parents could set up limited “mini accounts” for 13- and 14-year-olds, with full accounts available from the age of 15.
The act also goes beyond age limits. It takes aim at design features regulators say keep young users hooked, including infinite scroll, reward mechanics and late-night notifications. Platforms that break the rules could face fines of up to 6% of global turnover.
Commission spokesperson Thomas Regnier said all online services would have to prove they are safe for minors, describing the approach as reversing the burden of proof. He said the text avoids the breadth that sank the French law, with encyclopaedias, educational platforms and digital news exempt. Content that can be viewed without an account would also stay accessible.
The “build” camp arrives
On Wednesday in Berlin, a different approach took shape. The European Social Association launched with the backing of more than 150 organisations, including Mastodon. Its aim is to coordinate open, decentralised social networks that Europeans control themselves.
Its co-convenors, Michael Foster and Björn Staschen, argue that Europe needs an open, interoperable and community-driven social infrastructure that reflects democratic values and serves the public interest. The idea has some support in Brussels. The Commission’s Open Source Strategy, published in June, names decentralised social media as one of four areas where it will back European alternatives, alongside cloud services, workplace tools and secure email.
Regnier said the Commission welcomes the development of European platforms. He did not, however, announce any specific funding or projects for social networks.
Where the two approaches could collide
The “ban” and “build” camps may yet bump into each other. Australia’s law names ten large commercial platforms, from TikTok to YouTube. France’s rejected law reached much further, covering any service where users connect or share content. That wording could have swept in community-run networks such as Mastodon.
The Commission has not said whether the Kids Act would apply to decentralised networks in the same way as to large platforms. Age verification is another obstacle. Technology giants can pay for sophisticated checks, but volunteer-run services may struggle to afford them. The EU is developing a free, privacy-preserving age-verification app, which the Commission expects to release by the end of the year.
Common ground
For all their differences, both camps increasingly agree that the problem lies in how platforms are designed, not only in who uses them. A Dutch member of parliament proposed this week to ban what she called harmful addictive design features, a sign the debate is widening beyond age limits.
Whether Europe ultimately bans, builds or does both, the platforms children use look set to change. The open question is whether lawmakers can write rules precise enough to survive in court and workable for the smallest services, not just the largest.
