France has joined Australia and the United Kingdom in moving to restrict children’s access to social media. By banning under-15s from holding accounts, it will become the first European state to introduce such a policy, writes Dr Helena Ivanov, Associate Fellow, The Henry Jackson Society.

Unlike the United Kingdom, where the Government has warned that implementation will take time, France plans to move quickly. From September, children under 15 will no longer be able to open accounts and age verification will be required for new users.

From January 2027, the rule will apply to existing accounts as well. Social media companies will be expected to comply using verification tools approved by the French privacy regulator.

The policy has already attracted familiar criticism. Some argue that similar measures in Australia have had limited impact. Others raise concerns about privacy, data collection and the growth of the surveillance state.

These concerns deserve proper safeguards. They do not outweigh the case for the ban.

The Henry Jackson Society has long argued for restricting children’s access to social media for three reasons: safety, the loss of childhood and the growing impact of online disinformation.

First, social media platforms are simply not safe for children. Strangers can contact minors directly, often without any meaningful adult oversight. The rise of generative AI has made the danger even greater. Social media is increasingly being used to create and spread abusive and sexualised images of women and children without their consent. The Grok scandal was only the most visible example of a much wider problem.

Social media companies have had years to make their platforms safe. They have failed. On security grounds alone, restricting children’s access is justified.

Second, there is a serious question about what social media is doing to childhood itself.

In a recent viral video, a young British girl was asked what she would do with the additional eight hours she would have over the weekend without her usual screen time. Her answer was: “Stare at a wall.”

The answer was funny, but also deeply worrying. If that is the only alternative a child can imagine, then we have clearly failed to provide young people with a life beyond screens.

Children do not spend hours scrolling simply because they lack discipline. Social media platforms are deliberately designed to be addictive. Adults struggle to resist them. Thinking that kids can regulate themselves in this context is, therefore, absurd.

There is, however, a third and longer-term danger: disinformation.

Social media platforms have become spaces where almost anyone can publish almost anything, while accountability remains limited. False information spreads quickly, often reaching millions before corrections appear.

The assumption that young people are better equipped to deal with this because they are “digital natives” is simply wrong. Knowing how to use TikTok or Instagram is not the same as knowing how to assess evidence, identify manipulation or recognise an unreliable source.

The Henry Jackson Society’s own research has shown just how serious the problem is. In a poll of students in the United Kingdom, just under 70 per cent of respondents said they would be reluctant to give their future children the MMR vaccine because of information they had encountered online.

Even if only a proportion acted on that hesitancy, the consequences for public health would be severe.

This is precisely why delaying children’s access matters. A ban gives schools, parents and governments time to teach young people what disinformation is, how it circulates, how algorithms amplify it and how to assess the credibility of what they see online.

That is not only a matter of individual safety. It is also a matter of democratic resilience. Hostile states are investing significant resources in creating and spreading disinformation. Exposing children to these environments before they have developed the skills to navigate them is irresponsible.

The criticism that some children will find a way around the ban is also weak. Some children manage to obtain alcohol. That does not mean alcohol should be freely available to them. No law is rendered pointless simply because enforcement is imperfect.

The ban will also help parents. Many allow their children to use social media not because they believe it is good for them, but because every other child appears to have it. Children feel the same pressure because all their friends are online. A universal restriction changes that dynamic. It removes some of the pressure from parents and makes it easier for children to remain offline without feeling excluded.

Age-verification systems must, of course, be tightly regulated. Companies collecting such information should be subject to strict privacy rules and independent oversight. But age verification already exists in many other areas of life. There is no reason social media should be exempt simply because the technology companies dislike regulation.

There are many public policies about which reasonable people can disagree. This is not one of them.

Social media companies have failed to protect children from predators, abuse, addictive design and disinformation. France is right to act, and other European countries should follow.

Share this article: