It’s an irritating contrast: the federal government has been announcing for months that it wants to burden companies with less bureaucracy. At the same time, however, the CDU and SPD for a ban on social media for children under 14 and for “adult” versions of the platforms for under 16s. More freedom for companies, less freedom for citizens?
This would amount to a ban on social media for young people. Excluding younger people from internet platforms requires checking every user’s age. That would be a severe encroachment on the sovereignty of millions of consumers who only look for entertainment or information on social media.
It would be similarly grotesque to require newspaper buyers to prove their age. Maybe a politician will come up with the idea that consumers have to show their cholesterol levels before they can buy sugary foods. Such absurd regulations on consumption violate consumer democracy, which is the core of the market economy.
Important source for all kinds of information
In the heated debate about banning social media, this encroachment on freedom is too rarely an issue. The core of the debate revolves around whether children and young people could be harmed if they spend long hours on social media. There are studies that suggest this, but the question has not been finally answered. But even if it were, banning social media for teenagers would be a bad idea.
Social media like X, Instagram, YouTube or Tiktok are not just platforms on which children and adults can watch more or less entertaining videos for hours. They are also a place of ideas and knowledge, where you can learn everything from crochet to history to the know-how for complicated repairs.
The platforms allow a diverse view of the world that reveals more about foreign countries than school lessons. For many young people, they are increasingly an important source of political and other information from their own country.
Restricting younger people’s access to this information seems all the more absurd when, under European law, they are allowed to vote at the age of 16. This is not just about consumer democracy, but about democracy itself. If politicians, like in Australia, begin to differentiate media and platforms based on trustworthiness and danger, some might suspect censorship. The SPD is already justifying a ban with hate speech and misinformation online.
Parents should guide children
The world of social media is not without its dark corners. Peeping Toms, sex offenders, mentally disturbed people or political activists approach children and young people under the protection of anonymity. Legal action can already be taken against this. Banning the use of social media for young people would also be an unsuitable means here. Such a ban would be difficult to enforce because young people are clever at getting around bans. But what is more important than this technical argument is that a ban is aimed at the wrong place.
Learning to use social media responsibly requires constant guidance and explanation. This is the responsibility of the parents, not the state. Social media is no different than knives or scissors, which need to be taught how to use them safely. They are no different from the dark corners and dangers in the hometown that parents usually keep their children away from.
A ban on social media would deprive parents of the opportunity to carefully introduce their children to the Internet platforms, in a decentralized manner, in collaboration with teachers and schools, knowing the level of development of the respective children. The state shouldn’t get involved. Worse still, a ban would relieve parents of their responsibility to prepare their children for life with social media. Once again the responsibility would be shifted to the general public.
Tech companies certainly aren’t making parenting any easier with the tempting promise of social media. But they also help. In competition on the market and not just due to public pressure, they have long offered parents the opportunity to regulate the use of the Internet and social media on their children’s cell phones – if father and mother consider this to be necessary in the interests of their offspring. After a government ban, only those who want to patronize citizens need to call.
