Sánchez Announces Five Measures to Regulate Social Media

Sánchez to Ban Social Media for Under-16s

Can the internet be "put in order" without infringing on rights? The government believes so and has a plan ready. Pedro Sánchez has announced a package of five legislative and regulatory measures for what he himself defined as "that failed state, the digital space," during a speech at the World Governments Summit in Dubai. The most talked-about measure: banning access to social media for those under 16 years old. "Our country will not bow down to the lies, hatred, or abuse of power of this new technological oligarchy," he stated.

The announcement comes after eight years of government, according to the timeline discussed in the thread, with parliamentary processing still uncertain. This is not a minor detail: any legislative development must pass through Congress, where the numbers don't automatically add up.

What Measures Are Included in the Social Media Regulation Plan

The core of the package is child protection. The government wants to set the minimum age for opening an account on a platform at 16 and strengthen tech companies' obligations regarding privacy and the spread of disinformation. Added to this is the demand for Meta to be held accountable in Congress, an event the Executive frames within its offensive against what it describes as "lawless territory."

The official justification combines two ideas repeated in the press release: combating the impunity of large platforms and curbing hate speech. "They are above good and evil," summarizes the Executive's version. In terms of timeline, the goal is to approve the initiatives in the first half of the year.

Censorship or Child Protection? The Clash of Narratives

This is where consensus breaks down. One group interprets the announcement as a precursor to a digital police state: first, the digital space is declared a "failed state," then the solution is offered—more verification, more digital identity, more control—and finally, criticism is shut out. Those who hold this view aren't talking about minors, but about architecture: once the verification infrastructure is in place, it can be applied to any content.

The other group responds with an argument that is difficult to refute in the abstract: there is a real lack of control. Minors accessing adult content, cyberbullying via apps, threats without consequences. The fact that the diagnosis is correct does not miccionan the remedy is, and that's where the real problem begins. Because regulating platforms is one thing, but deciding who defines what is a lie is quite another.

The Double Standard of "Free Space"

The most repeated objection concerns the media. If freedom of expression is the value to be protected, why is the defense of pluralism made from specific platforms—public television and outlets aligned with the government—while others are targeted? This is the question that underlies much of the analysis: the problem wouldn't be lies, but who has the license to decide what constitutes a lie.

The argument is reinforced by historical data. For decades, the flow of information was monopolized by a few actors; the internet broke that monopoly, and what is being attempted now, according to this interpretation, is to rebuild it in a different guise. Whether the guise is European or national matters little to those who hold this thesis.

Hodio, the Hate Speech Tracker

Among the presented tools is Hodio, a system for tracking and measuring the presence of hate speech and polarization on networks, with the aim of holding platforms accountable for allowing its dissemination. The reaction in the tech sector has been divided: measuring is harmless, but whoever measures sets the scale.

That's the sensitive point. A polarization index can be a statistical instrument or it can become a catalog of uncomfortable opinions, depending on who administers it and by what criteria. Without a clear definition of what counts as hate and what counts as criticism, the indicator is only as valuable as its methodology, and that methodology has not been detailed.

The Real Cost: Rent, Groceries, and Taxes

While digital order is debated, an objection resurfaces every few messages that has nothing to do with algorithms: the cost of living. Unpayable rents, a grocery basket that rises month by month, and unceasing tax pressure. In comparison, regulating social media sounds, at best, like a misplaced priority.

The contrast is stark but effective as a political argument: if the state cannot manage its own household economy, with what authority will it manage public discourse? Proponents of the plan respond that these are separate issues and both can be addressed. Critics argue that one is urgent and the other is a distraction.

From Felipe González to Today: Why No One Believes the Figures

There's a precedent that's always cited when something big is promised: the electoral commitment to create 800,000 jobs. Whether it was fulfilled depends on who you ask, but it left a lasting mark on the credibility of quantified promises. Since then, every announcement with a number carries its own discount.

The updated version of the joke, as recalled by a thread participant, is about the 800 or 1,000 jobs once promised and never seen. This isn't statistical rigor; it's collective memory. And collective memory, when a regulatory package arrives without an attached economic forecast, weighs more than any balance sheet.

---

Five measures, a tracking tool, and the promise not to bow down to anyone. Order, for now, has yet to reach the grocery basket. And no algorithm can fix that.