EU sets limits for social media: Who risks being left out?

“Children deserve a safer internet,” said European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen on September 17 as she presented the EU Kids Act, as euronews reports in an article republished by Telegrafi.

The proposal foresees restrictions on social media use, bans for minors under 18 certain practices designed to create addiction, such as endless scrolling of content (infinite scroll), and requires age verification through a privacy-respecting system.

Instead of users submitting documents such as birth certificates, platforms would receive only a “yes/no” confirmation of whether the person meets the required age.

The European Commission’s Executive Vice-President, Henna Virkkunen, described this as a delay of access, not a ban.

Children would be gradually introduced to higher-risk platforms at ages 13, 15 and 18, rather than being fully excluded from them.

But this framing has worried digital rights organizations.

“The proposal is presented as if the problem were age,” says Simeon de Brouwer, policy adviser at European Digital Rights (EDRi), a network of digital rights organizations in Europe.

According to him, delaying access does not address the root causes of harm.

The problem, he argues, lies in the platforms’ business model, the addiction-driving design and the manipulative practices that young people will face as soon as they reach the set age limits.

Age as the only indicator of vulnerability

De Brouwer’s main objection is that the Act treats age as the primary vulnerability factor to be taken into account.

“The only vulnerability factor taken into consideration is young age. But there are many other factors,” he says.

According to him, EDRi strives to also represent marginalized groups, whose voices are not always heard in Brussels.

This is particularly important in the case of age verification.

Although the aim is to protect children, in practice the mechanism could require all users to prove their age.

“If we really need to know who is a minor in order to protect them better, then we need to know the age of everyone,” de Brouwer argues.

According to him, this could turn smartphones and identity documents into prerequisites for access to online spaces and for exercising fundamental rights.

This category could include people without state identity documents, stateless persons, migrants who are not yet fully integrated into national systems, as well as people who choose not to use a phone.

Who could be excluded?

The restrictions could also affect some of the young people the Act aims to protect, particularly those who rely on the internet to build social relationships.

De Brouwer mentions young people with disabilities, who may have fewer opportunities for physical interaction; young people living in rural areas with no friends nearby; as well as those who do not receive enough support from parents.

For these people, the internet can be a way to find people with similar interests, experiences or identities.

“The number of young people who could lose opportunities is very large,” he argues.

Francesca Pisanu, a senior policy officer at Eurochild, a network focused on children’s rights, welcomes the Act’s aim in principle but acknowledges that the accessibility issue must be examined carefully.

She stresses that social media and the internet in general can be spaces where children and young people feel part of society.

There they can find people with similar identities and encounter greater diversity.

However, she warns that discrimination existing in the real world can also appear online.

Therefore, according to her, protective measures and those promoting inclusion must be implemented simultaneously, so they do not contradict each other.

Pisanu also mentions a Eurochild-linked study in the Netherlands, according to which children with disabilities or mental health problems were among the groups that supported a ban.

This shows that even marginalized groups do not necessarily have the same stance on this issue.

Collision with other laws and initiatives

For de Brouwer, the deeper problem relates to the political moment in which the Act is being proposed.

He worries that the Kids Act could weaken or dilute the Digital Fairness Act (DFA), another initiative aimed at strengthening consumer protection online, regardless of the service used.

According to him, an excessive focus on children could make society miss the chance to improve protection for all users.

He argues that many of the measures aimed at children could also be useful for adults.

For example, he asks, who would not want to be protected from AI assistants designed to create addiction and keep users on the platform as long as possible?

The biggest question

At heart, both sides seem to agree on one issue: how to protect children is only part of the problem.

The other question is: how to protect all people who are vulnerable, but who are not necessarily under 18?

The European Parliament and the EU Council must determine their positions on the Kids Act.

Meanwhile, the European Commission must examine the impact of the rules on fundamental rights by August 31, 2030.

This still leaves an important dilemma open: how to create a safer internet for children without creating new barriers for people who rely on online spaces for communication, inclusion and participation in society?