Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
EU Social Networks Government The Internet

France Becomes First European Country To Ban Social Media Access For Under-15s (theguardian.com) 144

An anonymous reader quotes a report from The Guardian: France's parliament has approved a bill banning social media access for children under 15, making it the first European country to bar children from apps such as TikTok. The president, Emmanuel Macron, has championed the ban as a key reform of his final term in office and pledged to enforce it by September. "France is leading the way in Europe when it comes to protecting our children and teenagers," Macron said in a video posted on social media, hailing "a major step forward."

He thanked members of parliament for backing the legislation on Tuesday. "The Constitutional Council must now rule on it, and then it will be time to take action to make this measure a reality and protect our children online," he added on X. After approval by the Senate earlier on Tuesday, members of the National Assembly passed the bill by 279 votes to 81. A growing number of countries are taking steps to restrict social media access amid multiplying warnings over its harmful effects on children.

The ban was to be introduced in two stages, with under-15s blocked from creating new accounts from September 1. The ban would apply to existing accounts from January 2027, according to the legislation. The digital minister, Anne Le Henanff, said before the vote that the timeline was realistic, "because age-verification tools already exist" and others are still in the works, and the onus was on the platforms to impose the rule. "For four months, all of us in France will have to prove our age," she told journalists. "If someone is under 15, the account will be closed." The minister also gave assurances that users' personal data would be protected.

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

France Becomes First European Country To Ban Social Media Access For Under-15s

Comments Filter:
  • by Rhapsody Scarlet ( 1139063 ) on Wednesday July 22, 2026 @12:03AM (#66250738) Homepage

    I'm sure the rate of Arctic ice melt is important to know about but it's not what we're here to see.

  • by BitterEpic ( 10503015 ) on Wednesday July 22, 2026 @01:31AM (#66250812) Homepage
    It's been a while coming, but we are finally starting to see the Big Tabacco moment for tech. We have no business placing faith in Amazon, Facebook, Google, Microsoft or Apple as the financials do not match up for appropriate behavior around children.
    • by Powercntrl ( 458442 ) on Wednesday July 22, 2026 @03:27AM (#66250882) Homepage

      It's not really about protecting children though, it's about making adults have to prove they're adults by providing ID.

      • by BeaverCleaver ( 673164 ) on Wednesday July 22, 2026 @04:44AM (#66250972)

        It's not really about protecting children though, it's about making adults have to prove they're adults by providing ID.

        Australia implemented similar rules last year. I'm a grown-up and I haven't had to submit ID to anyone.

      • by toutankh ( 1544253 ) on Wednesday July 22, 2026 @05:10AM (#66251006)

        It can be both, they're not mutually exclusive. It's good to protect kids, it's bad to degrade privacy. Ideally we'll find a way to protect kids without degrading privacy, I won't hold my breath.

        • Is it right to connect privacy to anonymity?
        • It's good to protect kids

          Hard disagree. It is good to positively support kids. It is evil to protect them. How will they ever become adults if they are always protected? There is nothing to learn if there is nothing to lose.

          • Right, so if a crack dealer offers a free sample of their range of products to a kid, we shouldn't support the kid, just positively support them? What if some random asshole offers candy at the exit of the school, next to their van?

      • by gweihir ( 88907 )

        That is a secondary goal, but one that the authoritarian assholes that want everybody watched all the time have had since the Internet became a thing. And these people are unfortunately everywhere, like a stink of rot that is always there once you look more closely.

      • Oh, like when you buy alcohol or tobacco?
    • by gweihir ( 88907 )

      The problem has been recognized as severe. Yes. That is a good thing. But the response to the problem is completely misguided and probably mostly ineffective. The problem is social media addictiveness and it does very much not only affect those younger than 15 years.

    • It's been a while coming, but we are finally starting to see the Big Tabacco moment for tech. We have no business placing faith in Amazon, Facebook, Google, Microsoft or Apple as the financials do not match up for appropriate behavior around children.

      I understand some of this, but what is your claim that Amazon is messing with people's minds?

    • Social media has no nicotine. Social media has no tar. The whole reason social media makes "addicted" is because it serves people large amounts of stuff they find entertaining. The situation is similar to when TV offered 24h cartoon channels in the 80s or with broadband in the 2000s. And the solution is the same: Send your kids ass outside if you think they consume too much.

  • by brebisson ( 4004735 ) on Wednesday July 22, 2026 @02:58AM (#66250864)

    Hello,

    I am french, I have 2 kids, now 19 (still a kid?) and 17.

    On one hand, I am 100% happy to see that law.

    I see way to many people, including my kids (and wife) "suck in" endless scrolling, harassed using these systems.
    Furthermore, I see how these systems are designed to "suck you in". And there is almost nothing you can do to fight it (except not go there). Education, training will NOT help you win against these systems who are run by professionals, using psychiatrist, endless A/B testing and resources. If you go on these networks, they will suck more and more of your time, energy, turn you into "human batteries" (aka Matrix) to feed themselves.

    On the other side,
    - They can also be great tools, blocking access to them can deprive kids from great opportunity. My 17 YO has been running a youtube channel for 3 years now (so, since she was 14), has over 50K subscribers (!) and is using it to bolster her "business" selling hand crafted masks. She has learned so much about so many things through this that it would have been a waste to not let her do it!
    - Mandatory age verification will be an imposition on all of us and reduce liberties for everyone
    - These are the tools of the area and kids will need to learn how to use them. Blocking them from doing so will render them less effective later.

    At the end I think that what should have hapend is that the law should have required these companies to stop being so agressive in trying to lock and keep people in, and also have some good mechanism for controlling "bad speach" (as a self repost?).... The lawmakers look at it, but it was judged unconstitutional and so they went with age verification.

    Cyrille

    • That is very relevant. I wonder about social media that is more focused on message exchange and expository functions, for example, someone posting a HOWTO, or maybe some way to handle some weird element. Something more forum based and organized along the lines of interests, as opposed to how it is now.

      What caused social media to fail is all the "here is some dude who paid some cash and spewing ragebait... he's now in your feed, deal with it. Lets make 3-5 new people a day, all bots, all spewing OPFOR pro

      • Social media per se isn't an ideally useful concept. We humans are adapted to living in small communities of between 20-50 people at the most. Large community communication systems such as social media are unnatural environments that cause dysfunctional outcomes and behaviours in humans when used. That's what we're seeing today.

        So no, I don't believe that social media can be done "right".

    • And you're comfortable with the internet watching your teenage daughter? You know what's happening, right?
      • by Bahbus ( 1180627 )

        This is ultimately irrelevant and could be said about almost anything.
        "Your comfortable with people watching your daughter's ballet recital? You know who else shows up to those?"

        There are weirdos for anything and everything. It's just important to teach them of the dangers and how to take whatever actions needed for themselves to feel safe and ok if a creep makes themselves known. You can't really worry, or even do anything, about the creeps that manage to stay completely invisible.

    • On one hand, I am 100% happy to see that law.

      Get off my law!

  • Instead of banning algorithms that slowly erode our social structure, by exploiting every mechanism our species has learned to function, to generate more clicks, we try (in vain) to "protect the children". Let's face it, we lost control over big tech long ago, and the profit generating machine must feast until the last humman on earth starves alone on his big, big pile of money. Until only paperclips are left from the whole universe...
    • by gweihir ( 88907 )

      Yes. The whole thing is barking up the wring tree. Completely. The problem is the addictiveness designed-in into social media because that is their whole business model. And it does not only negatively affect people younger than 15 years.

      We can measure and analyze addictiveness. Outlaw it above a certain low level. Imprison CEOs if needed. We do it for drug-dealers.

  • It'll go better than Australia's ban...right? You know, the one was quickly and easily bypassed? Because we keep focusing the punishments in the wrong directions. You want to ban teens from social media, punish *the teens* not respecting the ban. Otherwise you're just forcing people who want to use social media to hand over even more personal data to either them or some other untrustworthy third party.

    • Because we keep focusing the punishments in the wrong directions. You want to ban teens from social media, punish *the teens* not respecting the ban.

      There really is a difference in societal view. No we will never punish children for falling to the tricks of evil megacorps.

      • by Bahbus ( 1180627 )

        No we will never punish children for falling to the tricks of evil megacorps.

        At some point you gotta start putting some responsibility on the individual (and those raising them). Should we punish big businesses when they're bad? Absolutely. Should the business be punished for users bypassing any restrictions that are set up? No. That would be like you getting punished for a random thief breaking into your safe. So, you force the companies to do their best efforts to remove teens without doing weirdly invasive verification and then local authorities work towards finding and punishing

        • That attitude is exactly what's wrong with most of you people in America. You think that society exists for corporations to make money off people. In the rest of the world, we believe that society's sole justification for existence is to serve its people. We call it the social contract.

          Our differences cannot be reconciled.

          • Well, not so long as you make up premises that don't exist and imagine that Americans believe them. It's really hard to reconcile with other people when all you see are the straw men you built.

            And are you sure that "society" is what you mean? That's just a group of associated people, more of a property they share than a purpose it has. Institutions have purpose. Governments have purpose. Society is what people find themselves in when they keep interacting with each other.

          • by Bahbus ( 1180627 )

            You think that society exists for corporations to make money off people.

            No, I don't. I just believe everyone is ultimately responsible for themselves.

            Is it the the drug cartels and dealers fault that people buy and use illegal drugs? No.
            Is it the the drug cartels and dealers fault when people die because of the drugs? Depends. If they cut the drugs with something undisclosed; yes. Person died from simple overdosing or some other user error; no.
            Is it the breweries and bars fault that alcoholics exist and sometimes accidentally hurt others? No.

            I don't care about what manipulation

            • Is it the the drug cartels and dealers fault that people buy and use illegal drugs? No.
              Of course it is! Traffickers are the only reason for my ability to purchase drugs, since coca and opium poppy don't grow here.

              You think that society exists for corporations to make money off people.

              No, I don't.
              [...]
              I don't care about what manipulations social media companies use or "addictive features" they implement. No one is forced or required to use them.

              You seem to believe corporations have some sort of natural right to exist and WTH they want, and if something is wrong, it's people's fault. You put corporations' freedoms above people's interest. I wouldn't generalise to "you people in America" (in the sense of "*all* of Americans") but I would sa

              • by Bahbus ( 1180627 )

                Traffickers are the only reason for my ability to purchase drugs, since coca and opium poppy don't grow here.

                First of all, no. Because not all drugs are plant based. Secondly, you wanted to take drugs. Unless someone was holding a gun to your head forcing you to do drugs or somehow slipped them into you against your will or knowledge, you had to choose to accept any 'first time free' samples. Or you had to choose to go out and find a dealer and pay them. Both sides need to be punished. If you punish the dealer, but not me for willingly buying the drugs, I'll just find another dealer and nothing has been solved.

                You seem to believe corporations have some sort of natural right to exist...while corporation follow regulations

                No.

                • Secondly, you wanted to take drugs.

                  Being curious at a young age does not make me a bad person. It is now well understood that kids aren't mini adults, they are have immature brains and make what they later understand as unreasonable decisions.

                  I'll just find another dealer and nothing has been solved.

                  Go for it. I'd willing to accept your freedom in purchasing drugs. You're not a bad person, you're a victim of the traffickers. Victims don't get punished, they are provided with help (e.g. rehab programmes).

                  it is clear that authoritarian methods are more efficient in solving certain problems. It does n

                  • by Bahbus ( 1180627 )

                    Being curious at a young age does not make me a bad person.

                    Never said it does. Getting punished doesn't mean you were a bad person.

                    It is now well understood that kids aren't mini adults, they are have immature brains and make what they later understand as unreasonable decisions.

                    Which means their punishments should be used as way to teach and guide them.

                    Go for it. I'd willing to accept your freedom in purchasing drugs.

                    Than you'll have to be ok with the traffickers never going away. The demand from casual, recreational drug users far outweighs the demand from the high-volume addicts. And if I can get it, so can children.

                    you're a victim of the traffickers

                    Recreational drug users are not victims.

                    Victims don't get punished, they are provided with help (e.g. rehab programmes).

                    Rehab, when mandated, is a form of punishment that results in helping the individual. Punishment merely means impositio

        • by pla ( 258480 )
          You're proposing we hold kids responsible for violating laws created under the pretense of kids being too irresponsible to safely use social media.

          You see the problem there, right?
          • by Bahbus ( 1180627 )

            No. I'm proposing that if French lawmakers (and all others trying this shit) actually want the results they claim they want, this would be one of the only ways to accomplish it. Australia's method doesn't work. France's method isn't going to work. Taking the companies to court doesn't work.

            I think banning teens from social media is stupid. Especially the way everyone has chosen to go about it. Like ok, you get the children off all the major social media, tiktok, youtube, etc. However, they still have access

    • Australia's ban resulted in a 30% reduction in social media use. Also it's like smoking, it doesn't stop the addicts, it reduces the people who aren't yet addicted. Australia is an example of how amazingly successful this regulation is.

      • by Bahbus ( 1180627 )

        Australia's ban resulted in a 30% reduction in social media use

        Not even. 15-20% at best.

        Also it's like smoking

        In most of the US, it is illegal for minors to possess/use tobacco and alcohol - on top of it being illegal to sell to them nationwide. The minors can be punished with fines, community service, or more depending on location. Australia does similar but lesser for alcohol, but not tobacco. France does neither. Guess which country of the three has the lowest usage of tobacco and alcohol among minors? The US, despite the cutoff being 21 instead of 18. Guess who has the highest? France.

  • Which tools exactly is the French government vouching for, as far as their effectiveness?
    • by gweihir ( 88907 )

      The are using the tool of "confidentially state what you want and it will magically come into existence". A mental defect typically found in politicians and some parts of the legal profession.

      • As long as they accept this as a valid compliance from social media companies - "we are have implemented all APIs to rely on this tool you trust, as soon as it is named".
        • by gweihir ( 88907 )

          Obviously not. Then they would admit they have no clue. They are at least smart enough to see that. Well, most are.

    • by Himmy32 ( 650060 )
      If they don't specify, then they can hold themselves blameless for the privacy violations. It's those evil companies that just implemented it wrong.
  • And it does nothing to protect 15 year old's and older. A lot of people would need that protection. The right way would be to force the social media companies to fix their act and reduce addictiveness. But that is their whole business model, so they are not going to do that by themselves.

    • And I wouldn't expect them to or expect anyone to make them. They still sell cigarettes in France. Adults are generally allowed to do addictive things.
    • by Bahbus ( 1180627 )

      Or or or, and I know this is kind of a wild take, parents (or other caretakers) should do their jobs of raising and educating children better.

  • And make parents accountable !!
  • "The minister also gave assurances that users' personal data would be protected."

    How about instead of assurances, there are hard, fast, and possibly deadly rules for what happens when users' personal data isn't protected. That'll make them really think about whether they want to link everything to identities.

  • Ban (Score:4, Interesting)

    by pr0nbot ( 313417 ) on Wednesday July 22, 2026 @07:01AM (#66251160)

    An interesting perspective I heard on this from some campaigner on the telly was: it's not banning your kids from accessing social media, it's banning social media companies from accessing your children.

    I think that better highlights that we're talking about enterprises with predatory interests.

    • Sure, but the predatory interests are the people who want you identified no matter where you go. Nobody gives a fuck about the health of kids; otherwise, there would be free school lunches and such.

    • Sounds like Facebook was lurking in a bush jumping at kids passing by without any initiative from the kid.

  • Didn't UK already ban it? That would make France the first EU country but second European country?
  • https://www.theguardian.com/en... [theguardian.com] What's this to do with social media? Wait, was this article written by a 14 years old? Did they believe the arctic sea ice melt is causing the social media ban?!

    This is so confusing.
  • Is having sex with under-15s still okay in France? Trump and his friends want to know...
    • Is having sex with under-15s still okay in France?

      Yes if both partners are consenting, unpaid and:
      * both partners are below 18, or:
      * one partner is above 18 and the age difference is less than 5 years.

      Source: Art. 222-23-1 CP https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr... [legifrance.gouv.fr]
      Article introduced in the Penal Code by Law 2021-478 (21 April 2021). The law: https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr... [legifrance.gouv.fr]
      This law was discussed following case of a relation between a 28 y.o. man and a 11 y.o. girl known as "Sarah" occurred on 24 April 2017, where the adult could only be punished very lightly as

  • by Locke2005 ( 849178 ) on Wednesday July 22, 2026 @11:14AM (#66251496)
    My daughter was taught by Facebook to lie, because they required people to be 13 or older to create an account. Rather than jumping through parental consent hoops, a whole generation was taught to just lie about their age, because there was no real verification of age. Those kids now all have Facebook accounts that say they are 5 years or so older than they actually are. How does a French person prove they are 15 or older? Get their middle-aged boyfriend to vouch for them? "I, Humbert Humbert, do solemly swear that Lolita is age 18."
  • I was just flipping through the broadcast TV channels, looking for a good Woodwright's Shop program and I passed by Sesame Street. There's good old Elmo. And Elmo's buddy, a cheerful talking smartphone.

    Fuck you, Sesame Street.

  • It's a race to the bottom. Soon they will ban social media for the unborn.

  • Surely one day they'll stick, right? Even the wettest greasiest skin will dry out and finally they'll stick and the wound will heal, right!?

    When will people fucking learn that dumb shit like this is like trying to control weeds by cutting the visible part off. The under 15 crowd will just use other means to get access, and nothing will be fixed. The real solution is to regulate media and marketing, divorce the abuse of psychology from it, impose punishment/fines that aren't a slap on the wrist, then actuall

Why be a man when you can be a success? -- Bertolt Brecht

Working...