Is Banning Social Media Actually a Good Idea? A Perspective from Spain
Is banning social media for those under 16 a good measure against the youth mental health crisis? The debate over our children's digital safety is more urgent than ever.
By now, I take for granted that you, dear reader, are already aware of the news: Pedro Sánchez, President of the Government of Spain, announced plans to ban access to social media for minors under 16. The measure includes requiring tech companies to implement reliable and secure age verification systems and, furthermore, making the executives of these companies legally responsible for any non-compliance they may incur.
The announcement responds to a shift in the perception of new technologies that began a few years ago, primarily following scandals like the one involving Facebook and Cambridge Analytica. Since then, a certain “techno-pessimism” has replaced those years when social media seemed like democratizing tools that had arrived to “make the world a better place.” Those were the days when it seemed Twitter was the cause of popular revolutions and not the cesspool of hate it has become today.
Since then, many voices have risen to denounce the negative impact social media has on the well-being of young people: loss of attention, increased intensity of youth bullying, privacy intrusions, and mental health issues related to self-esteem or sleep. The combination of mobile phones and social networks—especially Instagram and TikTok—has given rise to what Jonathan Haidt calls the “phone-based childhood.”
With this shift in perception, the first attempts to change the status quo have begun—a status quo that seemed to be driving us to leave our children in the hands of social media at increasingly younger ages. The mobile phone, and with it uncontrolled access to social networks, was being handed over earlier and earlier. Twelve years old seemed like the absolute ceiling that was impossible to exceed without giving them one, but for a long time now, it has been the “star gift” of the First Communion (between ages 7 and 10), and it is quite common to see smartphones in primary schools.
First came the changes in the regulation of schools and institutes, banning phones in classrooms. Regarding social media, Australia was the first country to make a move by banning access to those under 16; following them, others like France (15 years) and now Spain seem to be following the same line. If we set aside the noise that political polarization can create, we welcome the fact that attempts are finally being made to change a situation that was starting to become truly worrying. Let’s analyze the different aspects of this news.
Do Social Media Cause Mental Health Problems?
This is the most controversial point. Judging by the data, it seems evident that a global mental health epidemic has been recorded over the last ten years, especially affecting young people. Numerous experts from fields such as psychology, psychiatry, or sociology argue that there is no causal relationship between social media use and these problems. At this point, it is worth remembering that causality is not the same as correlation: just because two events are related doesn’t mean one causes the other.
However, many other researchers believe that the correlation between the two is, on its own, a reason to legislate on the matter, especially given the gravity of the problem. Others emphasize a point to keep in mind: use is not the same as abuse. Perhaps a reasonable use of social media does not have a negative impact, but its addictive design pushes many adolescents to use it uncontrollably, negatively affecting multiple aspects of their lives.
Can You Put Gates on the Internet Field?
One of the most unknown aspects for most families is the technical impact that the development of the law may have. At first glance, it is hard to believe the big tech companies when they claim they cannot determine a user’s age with certainty, especially considering the advanced AI systems they use to know our most intimate details. However, the question lies not only in the possibility of doing it but in doing it securely, without revealing our identity. The EU has been working for some time on a “digital passport” to facilitate these types of operations, though it is still years away from being available.
Another issue that has been highlighted in countries that have already passed similar laws is the technical “tricks” to bypass blocks. The most obvious is the use of a VPN. This technology allows a user to simulate a connection from another country where the age restriction does not apply. While it is true that for any measure approved, some kind of cheat will exist, it is no less true that not everyone has the technical knowledge to use it. Furthermore, disincentivizing—even if it doesn’t represent an absolute triumph in the short term—always represents progress in the long run when it comes to changing habits and customs.
And the Tech Companies, What About Them?
Many voices accurately point out that the true and definitive solution must involve a redesign of these types of applications. We are all familiar with the techniques social media uses to “vampirize” our attention: infinite scroll, instant gratification, social validation through likes, constant notifications... The algorithm they work with drags people—and more forcefully, adolescents—into an “echo chamber” effect where they come to believe that the world is, in fact, what is happening on their timeline.
Knowing these strategies, it wouldn’t hurt to demand that the companies creating these networks stop performing social engineering experiments on the minds of our youth. Their profit model based on advertising must be able to survive without turning the brain into a punching bag, constantly rattled by algorithms seeking their thirty seconds of glory at the expense of polarizing, poisoning, and destroying self-esteem through social comparison strategies.
The Role of Families
And what is our role as families in all this? Well, obviously, we must take the lead, regardless of what happens with the new law. The ultimate responsibility for everything that has happened so far is ours, and it will remain so. Beyond how “evil” social media can be, it is in our hands to educate our children in the responsible use of any type of technology. Warning them of the dangers, controlling their use, or proposing creative alternatives are tasks we should incorporate into our digital routine.
Of course, the most important part of education comes from the example we set. It is useless to try to explain to young people how harmful social media can be if we spend the day with our own noses buried in Instagram. One of the reasons the age of use plummeted was the inability of parents to forbid their children from something they themselves did not perceive as dangerous. Well, it is time we treat social networks as what they are: something as harmful, addictive, and dangerous as tobacco or alcohol. You wouldn’t let your children smoke or drink at 12 years old, would you? Exactly.
A Final Reflection
I am reading many people saying that the law will not achieve the desired effect, that it has technical complications that aren’t being discussed, or that it is a cover to deflect attention from the government’s political problems. These types of comments seem cynical to me. What is the alternative? Denying that social media is related to multiple mental health issues by hiding behind certain statistical studies? Honestly, anyone who has children or pays a little attention to youth will realize that something is wrong and that we have lost control of the situation.
All the excuses and criticisms regarding the law will not hide the harsh reality: it is necessary to put a foot in the door and stop this spiral we have fallen into. Someday, we will look back and think how we were so naive and irresponsible to let our children connect, practically without control, to technologies with such harmful potential as current social media.
Doing nothing cannot be an option.
Enough is enough.