Digital Rights: Why Holding Tech Companies Accountable is More Effective Than Social Media Bans for Children

Across the globe, a new legislative trend is emerging: the blanket ban of children from social media. Driven by a legitimate desire to protect minors from documented digital harms, governments are increasingly turning to age restrictions as a primary solution. However, experts argue that these bans often provide an illusion of safety while leaving the underlying systemic risks untouched.

The Rise of the Global Ban

The momentum for age-based restrictions gained significant traction following Australia’s decision to ban under-16s from 10 major social media platforms. This move has sparked a worldwide race among lawmakers to impose similar limits. Today, children represent one in three internet users, and digital technology mediates nearly every aspect of their development, from education to social identity.

While the instinct to protect children is correct, the current approach often focuses on the wrong target. By focusing solely on blocking access, policymakers may be letting tech companies off the hook for the very features that make these platforms harmful.

The Illusion of Protection

Age restrictions are not a new concept, but their effectiveness remains inconclusive. When governments ban children from specific services without reforming the broader system, they create several critical gaps:

• Displacement to Unregulated Spaces: Banned children often migrate to less scrutinized environments, such as AI chatbots, gaming platforms, and educational technology services, where they face similar risks with even less oversight.
• The Age Threshold Gap: Many proposed restrictions only target children under 16. This leaves a vulnerable window for those aged 16 to 18 and fails to account for those who circumvent poorly implemented restrictions.
• Entrenching Inequality: For children facing intersecting vulnerabilities—related to disability, race, religion, or gender—digital spaces are often vital for identity safety and support. Blanket bans can strip these marginalized groups of their primary community networks.

Safety vs. Rights: A False Choice

According to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child General Comment No. 25, all children’s rights apply fully in the digital environment. This creates a tension between the right to protection from harm and the rights to access information, expression, and participation.

Marie-Ève Nadeau, Head of International Affairs of the 5Rights Foundation, suggests that current age-based bans create a false choice between freedom and safety. When access is restricted without addressing the design of the platform, the fundamental rights of the child are compromised without necessarily ensuring their safety.

The Challenge of Age Verification

A major hurdle for any age-based policy is “age assurance”—the umbrella term for age estimation and verification. Current mechanisms are often inadequate:

• Failure of Self-Declaration: Global privacy regulators have found that 24% of services lack any age assurance mechanism, and 90% of those relying on simple self-declaration are easily bypassed.
• Privacy Risks: There is a constant risk that age verification could lead to excessive data collection, exposing a child’s identity.

However, robust solutions do exist. Australia’s age assurance technology trials suggest that privacy-preserving verification can confirm age without revealing identity. Technical standards like the 2089.1-2024 Standard for Online Age Verification from the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) provide a framework for secure, proportionate, and independently audited systems.

A Path Toward Systemic Accountability

Rather than focusing on gatekeeping, the priority should shift toward holding tech companies accountable for the products they build. This means moving away from the flawed implementation of laws like the US Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA)—which sets a consent threshold at age 13—and toward a model of systemic risk management.

Proposed Requirements for Platforms:

1. Banning Exploitative Practices: Regulating addictive design, manipulative recommender systems, and extractive data practices.
2. Safety by Design: Requiring privacy and age-appropriate design as the baseline for any product reaching the market.
3. Mandatory Impact Assessments: Forcing companies to anticipate and mitigate how their products expose children to risk, similar to safety standards in aviation or medicine.
4. Independent Auditing: Establishing enforcement mechanisms that include third-party audits to ensure compliance.

Over 55 leading organizations and experts globally have already endorsed the 10 best-practice principles developed by the 5Rights Foundation to achieve this goal. The objective is clear: create a digital world where children can exercise their rights safely, without needing to be cut off from it entirely.

Frequently Asked Questions

Do social media bans actually stop children from using the internet?

Generally, no. Evidence suggests that blanket bans often push children toward less regulated and less visible spaces, such as certain AI tools or gaming platforms, where risks may be equal or higher.

What is “Age-Appropriate Design”?

Age-appropriate design means building platforms with the specific needs and vulnerabilities of children in mind from the start. This includes disabling addictive “engagement loops” and ensuring high privacy settings are the default for minors.

Can age be verified without compromising privacy?

Yes. New privacy-preserving technologies and standards, such as those developed by the IEEE, allow platforms to verify that a user meets an age requirement without requiring the user to share their full legal identity.