Macron proposes banning social media for under-15s in France

Macron proposes banning social media for under-15s and opens debate on age verification

Emmanuel Macron’s announcement to ban social media access for under-15s in France has shifted from a child protection measure to a serious trial of national digital identity verification. The paradox lies in selling this as a shield for children while requiring platforms to collect and store citizens' personal data. Accessing a social network now means proving who you are, which is where the problem begins.

What Macron proposes and why it is debated

The ban affects under-15s, according to the debate. The text does not specify the technical mechanism, leading to various interpretations. Some see it as a simple age barrier, like those for alcohol or tobacco. Others view it as a more ambitious digital identification system that, once implemented for minors, could extend to all users.

The official argument is protecting minors from harmful content and compulsive use. The critical argument is that controlling children is the gateway to controlling everyone. Doors to the field, some summarize. The discussion is not whether children spend too much time on TikTok, but who decides how much is too much and with what instruments.

Age verification: how to control without identifying everyone

This is the technical crux. To prevent a 15-year-old from entering Instagram, you must check their age. Reliable age verification practically requires an ID document, a phone number linked to a holder, or a banking system. Any of these turns social media access into an identification act.

The most repeated objection is that internet anonymity ends. Not through an explicit ban, but through friction: if you must give your name and surname to comment on a forum, many will stop. It is censorship by disincentive, the hardest to challenge because it prohibits nothing. It affects both those who insult and those who disagree.

Evading the rule is easy: Australia's data

Comparative experience does not support regulatory optimism. In Australia, where similar restrictions apply, adolescents easily bypass them. The data circulating in the debate is eloquent: 75% of sanctioned adolescents describe bypassing restrictions as easy or very easy. The most common methods are lying about age during verification (57%), entering false birth dates when registering (44%), using a parent's or older sibling's account (42%), and connecting via VPN (30%).

64% of 14- and 15-year-old surveyed youth have not had their accounts deleted because platforms did not detect them. Translation: the rule is trinc on paper and broken in practice. Anyone with a smartphone and two fingers of wit enters just the same.

The real cost: biometric data and digital trail

If verification is done well, the State and platforms accumulate an identity record linked to each citizen's digital activity. If done poorly, it serves no purpose. The looming question is what happens when this record is cross-referenced with tax authorities, police, or a hate crime investigation.

The most cited response in the debate is that you should not give your ID to platforms. Encrypted messaging, SMS, email: alternatives exist and are free. The problem is that opting out of social media is not an option for those who use them to work, inform themselves, or simply socialize. The freedom not to be becomes exclusion.

Who wins and who loses with the measure

The immediate winner is the official narrative, presenting the measure as bold against tech companies. The loser, if the system is implemented, is the anonymous user who speaks without giving their name. In between are parents, who have long asked for tools to limit their children's access and now receive a rule that does not solve the underlying problem: digital education cannot be delegated to an age verifier.

There is a final irony. The same networks sought to be closed to minors are the ones that exposed cases governments tried to cover up. Closing the door to children does not close the door to censorship. It only opens it a little wider.

What if the problem is not age, but who controls the key?