10 ms·

France targets Australia-style social media ban for children next year

237 points by belter 10mo ago

nephihaha 10mo ago
What a coincidence.
brewcejener 10mo ago
HN readers won't be able to find online partners if this accelerates.
ta9000 10mo ago
The trade war continues. We’ve known these shitty platforms were polluting kids for at least a decade.
Insanity 10mo ago
Good, social media should be considered a harmful substance. Even for adults it’s probably a bad thing.
- dfxm12 10mo ago
  It sounds like you don't like social media. With that in mind, why is it good to add a layer of user surveillance on the Internet? Where's the connection between "social media is harmful" and "it is good to add surveillance"? If you think social media is harmful, wouldn't it be good to regulate social media? What does regulating French (or Australian, or wherever) citizens have to do with it?
  - JumpCrisscross 10mo ago
    > Where's the connection between "social media is harmful" and "it is good to add surveillance"? There doesn’t have to be one. > If you think social media is harmful, wouldn't it be good to regulate social media? Literally what a ban for under-15-year-olds is.
    - dfxm12 10mo ago
      I'm not talking about theory, but what's happening in practice. In case you're unaware, Australian style ban is enforced via surveillance, such as a a mix of methods, such as facial age estimation, behavioural signals and an option to upload government-issued ID. Literally what a ban for under-15-year-olds is. If you're going to argue, please do so in good faith by taking my whole post into context. Thank you.
      - Insanity 10mo ago
        Thanks for clarifying some of your points. I agree with you that the methods (like ID uploads and face recognition) aren’t the best. But I’m not sure if there are viable alternatives.
      - JumpCrisscross 10mo ago
        > In case you're unaware, Australian style ban is enforced via surveillance, such as a a mix of methods, such as facial age estimation, behavioural signals and an option to upload government-issued ID Sure. Australia opted for private compliance. Adults who choose to use social media are subject to more surveillance (because that’s how the social media companies chose to comply). In exchange, not only does that level of surveillance not apply to children, but the default state of surveillance they were under from social media companies (and being normalized towards) is gone.
      - tzs 10mo ago
        In existing areas where France requires age checks, such as adult sites, they require sites to offer doubly anonymous verification. In doubly anonymous verification the site does not learn the user's identity, and the site that actually does the age check does not know which site the check is for. Furthermore, France is in the EU. They expect to deploy their implementation of the EU Digital Identity Wallet by the end of 2026. That allows users do age verification using protocol between the user's smart phone and the site with the age restriction. (Later they are expected to add support for smart cards and security tokens like YubiKey so a smart phone won't be required). That system works by storing signed identity credentials tied to a hardware security device you provide, and using a zero-knowledge proof based protocol between your device and the site to prove to the site that your identity credentials show an acceptable age without providing any other information to the site. The EU has been working on this for several years, and it is currently undergoing large scale field trials.
- pabs3 9mo ago
  Definitely well past time to ban social media.
DalasNoin 10mo ago
Many of these "social" media websites increasingly just fling AI-generated disturbing videos at people. I am sure we could build a web that is actually pleasant to use for kids, but we are not building it. youtube for example: https://x.com/kimmonismus/status/2006013682472669589 https://x.com/kimmonismus/status/2006013682472669589
- Eddy_Viscosity2 10mo ago
  If we did build it and it became popular, it would quickly be taken over by the same forces that are destroying the current internet. To get good social media sites (and a better internet as well), you would first have to change the economics of the entire system driving these forces. But as is said "It's easier to imagine the end of the world than the end of capitalism".
  - IncreasePosts 10mo ago
    it doesn't need to be social media, it could be an entirely closed system with some moderators curating content.
    - Eddy_Viscosity2 10mo ago
      Well, that's why we use HN. So far no ads, how long that lasts is anyone's guess.
      - throwaway85825 10mo ago
        HN does have ads.
        wolvoleo 10mo ago
        It has some job postings yes but they are really few and far between. And really inconspicuous. And don't try to track us across the internet. If all ads were like this we wouldn't hate them. And I don't think they will start. It's good advertising for Ycombinator (I'd never heard of them before) and it doesn't cost a fortune to run really. They have one employee (or maybe 2 now?) and it all runs on one physical server. It's not a meta with a huge workforce and offices and datacenters all over the world.
hollow-moe 10mo ago
> If a child is in a Formula One car and they turn on the engine, I don’t want them to win the race, I just want them to get out of the car. I want them to learn the highway code first, and to ensure the car works, and to teach them to drive in a different car. Yet computer education in France has been severely lacking for so long. From middle school to even universities (except the courses computer focused obviously) people aren't taught correctly. Teachers themselves are lost to computers and lectures are bad. The goal is obviously to have tech illiterate people knowing just enough to use computers for the job but not worrying about the digital autoristarism currently being deployed.
- tonfa 10mo ago
  > The goal is obviously to have tech illiterate people knowing just enough to use computers for the job but not worrying about the digital autoristarism currently being deployed. If anything, without social media access, kids are more likely to play/hack around.
- tokai 10mo ago
  Its a weird analogy. Plenty of people have years of racing experience before they get their drivers license.
  - potato3732842 10mo ago
    I'd be very surprised if the overwhelming majority of F1 drivers weren't in some sort of go-kart racing league long before they held government licenses.
  - orbital-decay 10mo ago
    Yeah. F1 drivers in particular start their training from the age of 4-5. By 6-7 they participate in competitions, at 12-13 they are already at the professional level in karting. Verstappen got his F1 license at 17, which technically qualifies as a "child" for the law.
  - hollow-moe 10mo ago
    So it means they got lectures and training beforehand. Which currently neither (the vast majority of) parents nor public education is properly providing for computer usage. Main difference being there's no licence required to access the internet, for the best and the worst.
AshamedCaptain 10mo ago
Devil's advocate: what is the difference between "social media" and a website very much like this one? When can I look forward to having to give a DNA test to read HN?
- Pooge 10mo ago
  The main difference in my view is the personalized algorithm that determines what to feed you next. HackerNews has an algorithm but it's not personalized—i.e. everyone sees the same thing.
  - AshamedCaptain 10mo ago
    My own website has a bulletin board that offers a personalized list of messages after you login: whatever threads you have not yet read. And so do many other websites of this style. So this cannot be a differentiating aspect.
    - adamnemecek 10mo ago
      They are very different.
    - Workaccount2 10mo ago
      >So this cannot be a differentiating aspect. Now explain that nuance to an 80 yr old law maker who hates the damn email.
      - AshamedCaptain 10mo ago
        For the record, that is exactly my point . I do not want yet another sword of Damocles for websites, even less if it depends on the mood of a clueless judge.
      - seszett 10mo ago
        Not to say that they are technically literate, but the average age of French lawmakers (which are just the members of parliament) is 50 years old. It's actually the same as the average age of voting-age French citizens, so they are quite representative on this regard.
snowpid 10mo ago
I am convinced that the current world wide rise of (right wing ) populist movements is mainly caused by social media. By regulating like this my hope is we can reduce their spread.
- andrewinardeer 10mo ago
  What's wrong with right wing populist movements? They come and go just like left wing populist movements. The pendulum swinging across both the political spectrums over election cycles is a thing of beauty.
  - snowpid 10mo ago
    both are a threat to democracy like we see on Trump.
    - logicchains 10mo ago
      Populist movements are the opposite of a threat to democracy; they represent the actual views of the people, not the views of some cultured elite. Real democracy, not some republican elitism.
      - plaidthunder 10mo ago
        The flip side of that, is that the same sense of urgency that flings populists into power also compels them to start to bend the systems that got them there in order to maintain power. After all, if the evil "elites" -- as if populists don't comprise their own elite class -- ever gain power again they could undo all of our "progress". You can see this tendency in how some red states, like Texas, have tried to furiously redraw their maps to maintain control of the US house. They are doing this because they fear that "the people" will not choose to give them a majority again. They even admit to it openly. https://www.politico.com/news/2025/07/15/trump-five-seat-pickup-redraw-texas-congressional-map-00454301 https://www.politico.com/news/2025/07/15/trump-five-seat-pic... California had a state wide vote to do the same thing. But they were acting in kind. Tit-for-tat is a reasonable strategy what Texas did. Though it remains a shame that it came to it. Cumulatively, these actions represent a breakdown of the machinery in our system that allows us to course correct. It's not healthy for anyone. Planned markets lead to bad economic outcomes, why? Because when you fix prices you lose the ability to react appropriately to changing conditions. Managed democracies lead to bad social outcomes for the same reason. You need reasonably fair elections in order to sense the condition of the population and react to it. Yet, populist rhetoric ups the emotional ante to the point where it starts to convince people that it's a good idea to subvert this. The old "Flight 93 Election" essay from 2016 is the perfect case study in this sort of absurd rhetorical escalation. Where they literally said, if Trump doesn't win America is doomed forever. We have to "charge the cockpit" before the plane crashes, so to speak. Yet, when he lost in 2020, America didn't end forever. It's all been a farce and a grab for power.
astrobe_ 10mo ago
The question is how this is implemented, in particular age verification. It's usual to say that MPs are old people that don't understand current technologies, but in law preparation committees they appear to be well aware; in particular, they mentioned a "double-anonymity" system where the site requesting your age wouldn't know your name, and the entity serving age requests wouldn't know which site it is for. They are also aware that people walk-around age verification checks with e.g. fake ID cards, possibly AI generated. I'm not sure if it is actually doable reliabily, and I'm not sure either that the MPs that will have to vote the law will know the topic as well as the MPs participating in these committees. I would personally consider other options like a one-button admin config for computers/smartphones/tablets that restricts access according to age (6-14, 15-18) and requiring online service providers to announce their "rating" in HTTP headers. Hackers will certainly object that young hackers could bypass this, but like copy-protection, the mission can be considered complete when the vast majority of people are prevented from doing what they should not do. Alternatively one could consider the creation of a top-level domain with a "code of content" (which could include things like "chat control") enforced by controlling entity. Then again, an OS-level account config button could restrict all Internet accesses to this domain. Perhaps an national agency could simply grant a "child safe" label to operating systems that comply to this. This type of solutions would I think also be useful in schools (e.g. school-provided devices), although they are also talking about severely limiting screen-time at school. For the french speakers, see: [1] https://videos.assemblee-nationale.fr/video.17950525_69426841ba445.commission-des-affaires-culturelles--table-ronde-sur-le-theme--proteger-les-jeunes-face-aux-ecrans-17-decembre-2025 https://videos.assemblee-nationale.fr/video.17950525_6942684... [2] https://videos.assemblee-nationale.fr/video.17952051_6942761feec7e.commission-des-lois--mme-marie-laure-denis-presidente-de-la-cnil-17-decembre-2025 https://videos.assemblee-nationale.fr/video.17952051_6942761...
- logicchains 10mo ago
  The only way they could successfully implement it is with constant live video surveillance, otherwise parents who oppose the ban can easily get around it. Which is going to be at least a double digit percentage of the population. And the police don't even have the resources to investigate theft and robbery, let alone go after millions of parents for helping their children create social media accounts.
bbbhltz 10mo ago
I'm one of the weirdos that should be on board with this, but I'm against it. This will do harm to marginalized youth and push younger people to lie and find ways around the ban. Plus, we saw that in Australia that the lobby behind the ban was in fact an ad agency that makes ads for gambling apps. Here is France, the ban is probably just a way to avoid legislation against companies selling crap that isn't for kids like vape pens and sports gambling apps.
everfrustrated 10mo ago
A ban on social media for children is a different way of saying ID Verification for the entire population. They are implicitly the same thing. You can't exclude children without first verifying _everyone_ and from there excluding people who match age < approved. This is basic logic. If you were a cynical person you could imagine this is actually politicians wanting to bring in an ID law and using "think of the children" as the social justification for it. If you're a conspiracy theorist you'd wonder why Apple and Google have now added the ability to upload and link your passport and other real id into their respective app wallets. How long before your phones browser is digitally signing all your social media posts with your ID...
- hexbin010 10mo ago
  Yup the aim is to de-anonymise the Internet for increased policing/spying abilities > How long before your phones browser is digitally signing all your social media posts with your ID... Under 10 years I'd say at this rate
- onraglanroad 10mo ago
  > If you were a cynical person you could imagine this is actually politicians wanting to bring in an ID law Sounds like a good theory, apart from the minor flaw that France already has ID cards: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Identity_card_(France) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Identity_card_(France)
  - nephihaha 10mo ago
    Gaming platforms are already doing it.
- someNameIG 10mo ago
  I'm Australian and neither any Meta platform nor Reddit have asked to verify my ID, as I presume both just inferred that I was over 16 and that was adequate.
  - immibis 10mo ago
RickJWagner 10mo ago
Good for France! I wish my country (USA) would adapt similar laws.
- nephihaha 10mo ago
  I love the way everything is forced online but you have to use state ID to chat with your friends now.
- viktorcode 10mo ago
  What do you expect this law will to achieve?
  - ludston 10mo ago
    Fewer teen suicides
deleted 10mo ago
[deleted]
herunan 10mo ago
This is just cop out legislation. I wanna see laws targeting addictive design systems and harmful content. Social media is only part of the problem. There’s so much that falls out of the social media definition. And regardless, kids are not stupid… VPNs, proxies, etc are easy to circumvent with.
- amelius 10mo ago
  Step 1 should be to kill the ad based monetization model.
- soperj 10mo ago
  Don't let the perfect be the enemy of good. Who cares if many can get around it, if the majority can't or won't, then it kills the network effects.
  - Ritewut 10mo ago
    I don't think this is good though. It's a police state masquerading as "SAVE THE CHILDREN!"
    - soperj 10mo ago
      yes, the police state is preventing Mark Zuckerberg from being a trillionaire.
      - sethammons 10mo ago
        I'm sorry. What? This legislation is very much giving more power to the government over what its citizens cannot do. The real impetus is control by the powers that be. The ideal citizen for an authoritarian would be fully controllable via digital means. A digital id that is networked with services is a wet dream for authoritarians. What does this have to do with limiting Zuck's net worth? Because less kids will see less ads? How much will this reduce his net worth? If we took licenses from kids and had them wait until 18, would you be claiming this is to prevent Musk from gaining more wealth?
Simulacra 10mo ago
This is such a fools errand, there will always be services popping up faster than regulators can ban them. This won't stop a lot of the kids. So wasteful.
- fidotron 10mo ago
  That's not how they think. They will ban everything and only allow that which is explicitly permitted.
meroes 10mo ago
More!
aucisson_masque 10mo ago
I remember when I was a kid I listened to radio until very late in to the night. Unless they want to remove all of technology from 10pm to 8am, this bill is going to be ridiculous. Teenager and kid will always find better things to do than sleep.
- immibis 10mo ago
  Famously, there's no point banning kids from buying alcohol because sometimes adults buy it for them.
triceratops 10mo ago
I'm going to restate my proposed age verification system here. I've posted it several times as a comment on this website. It works as follows: 1. A private company, let's call it AgeVerify, issues scratch-off cards with unique tokens on them. They are basically like gift cards. 2. AgeVerify's scratch-off cards are sold exclusively in IRL stores. Preferably liquor stores, adult stores, and/or tobacco/vape shops. Places that are licensed and check ID. 3. Anyone who wants to verify their age online can purchase a token at a store. The store must only demand ID if the buyer appears to be a minor (similar to alcohol or tobacco purchases). The store must never store the ID in any form whatsoever. 4. Giving or selling these tokens to a minor is a criminal offense. If a store does it, they lose their liquor or tobacco license. Treat it just like giving a minor alcohol or tobacco. 4a. Run public service announcement campaigns to communicate that giving an AgeVerify token to a child is like handing them a cigarette. There should be a clear social taboo associated with the legal ban. 5. The buyer of the AgeVerify token enters it into their account on whatever social media or adult website they want to use. The website validates the code with AgeVerify. 6. Once validated, the code is good for 1 year (or 6 months or 3 months, adjust based on how stringent you want to make it) - then it expires and a new one must be purchased. 7. A separate token is required for each website/each account. 8. The website is responsible for enforcing no account sharing. No identifying information is stored anywhere. Kids find it very hard to access age-restricted materials online, just like the vast majority of kids don't easily have access to alcohol or cigarettes.
- postepowanieadm 10mo ago
  Nah, EIDAS2 got you covered - you use your european identity wallet.
  - triceratops 10mo ago
    The beauty of my proposal is you don't need that.
    - 9dev 10mo ago
      But instead, you need this other thing, which requires elaborate infrastructure and new standards and regulations
like_any_other 10mo ago
Ban for children, and mandatory deanonymiziation [1] for everyone else. [1] At best with a "trust us we won't tattle" "privacy" architecture.
egorfine 10mo ago
I'm pretty sure it is going to pass. Too much of a coordinated efforts between western countries, thus it cannot fail. The decisions have been made and your voice pretty much doesn't matter.
- JumpCrisscross 10mo ago
  > The decisions have been made and your voice pretty much doesn't matter Source for these bans being unpopular?
  - agentifysh 10mo ago
    The confusion you are displaying is because you are not cognizant of whats going on throughout the world particularly in advanced economies that have opened their doors to all forms of migration legal and illegal. The timing of this coincides with countries in particular have seen a major rise in anti-migration sentiments which have become very fashionable and popular among young men in particular as polls show a global trend of men under 30s are shifting towards right wing with women towards leftwing. Suddenly, they decide NOW is the time to stop despite the fact that they've allowed young people to be exposed to all sorts of "dangerous content" and algorithms for decades, in the late 90s and early 2000s as teenagers we had uncensored access to the internet, warez, anarchy, shock as they have circumventions widely shared among each other today. In short, these countries are so concerned about a civil unrest in particular between religious groups that are perceived to have "overstayed their welcome" that they are outright trying to shutdown online discourse both legitimate and exaggerated. Europe, in particular UK, are on the brink of a major civil war as per intelligence reports and the ban for the young won't be the last but that the net would be cast even wider. It's a last ditched effort bandaid solution to keep the dam from bursting. With the backdrop of Keir Starmer's threats to extradite Americans and jail people for posting grievances against the demographic crisis, you can see where Europe and other advanced economies even in places like Korea mirror the trends, conflicts and draconian laws to buy time for the inevitable. If we want to keep this debate going there has to be an understanding of the political context and direction that can only be realized through inference and intuition. They will never openly announce true motives as that would hinder the objective. The comments I am seeing are awfully similar to the confusion and fierce debate I see around wrestling control of TikTok, which have largely been blamed on China, but the concern around uncensored videos of atrocities committed in the middle east reaching hundreds of millions of young people that has shifted steadfast opinions of a certain country which for decades were positive, now show significant departure among age brackets within the same political camp which shocked a lot of old people from that same side. Perception is everything and the question "asking for a source on if these bans popular" completely misses the mark and irrelevant, rather the more interesting question is, "will these bans that limit freedom of information and speech escalate and proliferate in the near future and whether France, Australia, Korea is just the start?" " will the countries reviewing ban like new zealand, greece, canada invite more countries to join the trend?" " why are these bans being accelerated in countries that have seen a large wave of migrations that are causing major frictions?"
wtcactus 10mo ago
Look, I’m all for not letting children into social media apps. But that’s the job of the parents, not the state. Besides, like many point out, this is just a way to deanonymize the web for everyone. Why is the state always meddling with the citizens lives and personal responsibilities, and why do we let them? Do we really appreciate so much this nanny state?
- jhanschoo 10mo ago
  I don't think you've thought through the sentiment "But that’s the job of the parents, not the state" very well. Parents frequently want limited Internet access for their older preteen/early teen children, don't trust the private sector to implement this limited Internet access, and don't have the time to enforce this limited access themselves as they have to go to work and their children have to go to school anyway (and their parents want this limited access for them in school as well). There are also easier options of no personal Internet access, and unrestricted access, but I suppose these are not very good for this stage of development. As citizens we like to delegate aspects of our lives to the government; for example, I'm responsible for commuting to work on time, but we have delegated the maintenance of roads or public transport to the government, and this is something that could also be done by the private sector (private roads, private transportation), and ends up as a constant negotiation between citizen and government. Some polities like Germany and I think Sweden have subsidized education for children in exchange for mandatory public schooling by an institution either owned by the state or extremely highly regulated by the state.
- dennis_jeeves2 10mo ago
  >But that’s the job of the parents, not the state. Agree with you. But you'd be surprised at the number of people who think that the state ought to do things for them, including raising their kids.
  - immibis 10mo ago
    What do you want to do with kids who happen to be born to incompetent parents? Do they deserve to just have fucked lives? And the state is currently pushing social media onto kids and parents, should it maybe stop doing that, at least?
diaspora72 10mo ago
If you want to know what is really driving this NOW, listen to this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g1RpYGJsp-A https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g1RpYGJsp-A
llmslave2 10mo ago
I was going to write a comment about how stupid and harmful these bans are for multiple reasons (including being entirely ineffective at their stated goals anyways), but honestly, who cares at this point. It's clear to me that the internet is dying and will either look dramatically different in the next decade or cease to exist as it's overtaken by bots and AI. And I'm starting to think that's a good thing for humans and society. Perhaps we will return to the real world. (We will still need the internet for communication, but hopefully far less for entertainment etc).
- loup-vaillant 10mo ago
  Here's the thing though: they're not killing entertainment — at least not in general. They're killing communication.
  - dyauspitr 10mo ago
    It’s all just AI and people slop. Real person to person communication won’t be effected.
  - llmslave2 10mo ago
    Are they? I don't see FaceTime, WhatsApp, Apple Messages etc being affected. The idiot politicians might in the future and will need to be fought, but I'm at the point where I want to see Facebook, Youtube, and X die.
    - loup-vaillant 9mo ago
      I've heard just today of England trying to hit messaging apps with mandatory image scans — ostensibly to avoid the transmission of unsolicited dick pics, which more than one teenage girl have been the target of, but in practice may have far reaching consequences. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y893SFA0iOk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y893SFA0iOk I am at the point where I'm watching out for messaging apps breaking actual end-to-end encryption (sending data based on local scans definitely applies there, even if the data is just sending a red flag once in a blue moon). And you can bet the second that happens, I'm out. One last message to all my contacts to tell them, and that's it. And if things get real bad, like, actual private communications become illegal, I know ways to get around that: https://elligator.org/ https://elligator.org/
dyauspitr 10mo ago
Every nation in the world needs this.
casey2 10mo ago
Any kind of government encroachment into the time of it's citizens is theft. Many of their citizens chose American social media because they prefer American values. This offended the nationalists so they are simply going to ban American sites and try to make their own inferior ones. Traditional media (Murdoch) and traditional gambling lobbied the hardest for these laws (of course these are anything but traditional). This is a billion dollar gimme to newscorp, but they will probably still fail to pick up the younger audience because they can't compete. In America we have freedom of religion and freedom of association, we used to have the freedom to put whatever we please in our own bodies and minds.
- immibis 10mo ago
  Absolute nonsense. American social media is used because it's designed to addict children and adults. Same reason people gamble, and buy advertised products.
brandonmenc 10mo ago
These laws are like requiring a license to watch R-rated movies on your cable TV. How is this even enforceable? Block the sites at the country level - good luck with that - or stfu. This is never going to work, and in 20 years we'll all be laughing at this omg get the genie back in the bottle legislation.
fleroviumna 10mo ago
[dead]
anthk 10mo ago
"Children" (teens, actually) could just join their own social media sites. Or use proxies, or whatever. Kids at 13 and 14 are pretty much on a different level. Back in the day we used to self host games, networks, kick pedos away (specially girls which made good laughs on them and dealing with them as dirty scum) and so on. What _older_ kids need it's both accountability and tools to kick idiots away between their own group.
cowboylowrez 10mo ago
We need to ban internet for humans under 18. There is nothing of value on the internet that can't be provided with a few cds worth of text and low resolution imagery, maybe a gig or so. Better yet, a decent set of old school encyclopedias is fine, and give the kids a dumb phone with parent white listed phone numbers and the kids have all they need.
- aziaziazi 10mo ago
  Agree. Same for adults.
  - cowboylowrez 9mo ago
    hackernews actually uses the internet
deleted 9mo ago
[deleted]
pabs3 9mo ago
Apparently the ban in Australia has been ineffective. Source; a mate's kid

237 points by belter 10mo ago

nephihaha 10mo ago

What a coincidence.

brewcejener 10mo ago

HN readers won't be able to find online partners if this accelerates.

ta9000 10mo ago

The trade war continues. We’ve known these shitty platforms were polluting kids for at least a decade.

Insanity 10mo ago

Good, social media should be considered a harmful substance. Even for adults it’s probably a bad thing.

dfxm12 10mo ago
It sounds like you don't like social media. With that in mind, why is it good to add a layer of user surveillance on the Internet? Where's the connection between "social media is harmful" and "it is good to add surveillance"? If you think social media is harmful, wouldn't it be good to regulate social media? What does regulating French (or Australian, or wherever) citizens have to do with it?
- JumpCrisscross 10mo ago
  > Where's the connection between "social media is harmful" and "it is good to add surveillance"? There doesn’t have to be one. > If you think social media is harmful, wouldn't it be good to regulate social media? Literally what a ban for under-15-year-olds is.
  - dfxm12 10mo ago
    I'm not talking about theory, but what's happening in practice. In case you're unaware, Australian style ban is enforced via surveillance, such as a a mix of methods, such as facial age estimation, behavioural signals and an option to upload government-issued ID. Literally what a ban for under-15-year-olds is. If you're going to argue, please do so in good faith by taking my whole post into context. Thank you.
    - Insanity 10mo ago
      Thanks for clarifying some of your points. I agree with you that the methods (like ID uploads and face recognition) aren’t the best. But I’m not sure if there are viable alternatives.
    - JumpCrisscross 10mo ago
      > In case you're unaware, Australian style ban is enforced via surveillance, such as a a mix of methods, such as facial age estimation, behavioural signals and an option to upload government-issued ID Sure. Australia opted for private compliance. Adults who choose to use social media are subject to more surveillance (because that’s how the social media companies chose to comply). In exchange, not only does that level of surveillance not apply to children, but the default state of surveillance they were under from social media companies (and being normalized towards) is gone.
    - tzs 10mo ago
      In existing areas where France requires age checks, such as adult sites, they require sites to offer doubly anonymous verification. In doubly anonymous verification the site does not learn the user's identity, and the site that actually does the age check does not know which site the check is for. Furthermore, France is in the EU. They expect to deploy their implementation of the EU Digital Identity Wallet by the end of 2026. That allows users do age verification using protocol between the user's smart phone and the site with the age restriction. (Later they are expected to add support for smart cards and security tokens like YubiKey so a smart phone won't be required). That system works by storing signed identity credentials tied to a hardware security device you provide, and using a zero-knowledge proof based protocol between your device and the site to prove to the site that your identity credentials show an acceptable age without providing any other information to the site. The EU has been working on this for several years, and it is currently undergoing large scale field trials.
pabs3 9mo ago
Definitely well past time to ban social media.

DalasNoin 10mo ago

Many of these "social" media websites increasingly just fling AI-generated disturbing videos at people. I am sure we could build a web that is actually pleasant to use for kids, but we are not building it. youtube for example: https://x.com/kimmonismus/status/2006013682472669589 https://x.com/kimmonismus/status/2006013682472669589

Eddy_Viscosity2 10mo ago
If we did build it and it became popular, it would quickly be taken over by the same forces that are destroying the current internet. To get good social media sites (and a better internet as well), you would first have to change the economics of the entire system driving these forces. But as is said "It's easier to imagine the end of the world than the end of capitalism".
- IncreasePosts 10mo ago
  it doesn't need to be social media, it could be an entirely closed system with some moderators curating content.
  - Eddy_Viscosity2 10mo ago
    Well, that's why we use HN. So far no ads, how long that lasts is anyone's guess.
    - throwaway85825 10mo ago
      HN does have ads.
      - wolvoleo 10mo ago
        It has some job postings yes but they are really few and far between. And really inconspicuous. And don't try to track us across the internet. If all ads were like this we wouldn't hate them. And I don't think they will start. It's good advertising for Ycombinator (I'd never heard of them before) and it doesn't cost a fortune to run really. They have one employee (or maybe 2 now?) and it all runs on one physical server. It's not a meta with a huge workforce and offices and datacenters all over the world.

hollow-moe 10mo ago

> If a child is in a Formula One car and they turn on the engine, I don’t want them to win the race, I just want them to get out of the car. I want them to learn the highway code first, and to ensure the car works, and to teach them to drive in a different car. Yet computer education in France has been severely lacking for so long. From middle school to even universities (except the courses computer focused obviously) people aren't taught correctly. Teachers themselves are lost to computers and lectures are bad. The goal is obviously to have tech illiterate people knowing just enough to use computers for the job but not worrying about the digital autoristarism currently being deployed.

tonfa 10mo ago
> The goal is obviously to have tech illiterate people knowing just enough to use computers for the job but not worrying about the digital autoristarism currently being deployed. If anything, without social media access, kids are more likely to play/hack around.
tokai 10mo ago
Its a weird analogy. Plenty of people have years of racing experience before they get their drivers license.
- potato3732842 10mo ago
  I'd be very surprised if the overwhelming majority of F1 drivers weren't in some sort of go-kart racing league long before they held government licenses.
- orbital-decay 10mo ago
  Yeah. F1 drivers in particular start their training from the age of 4-5. By 6-7 they participate in competitions, at 12-13 they are already at the professional level in karting. Verstappen got his F1 license at 17, which technically qualifies as a "child" for the law.
- hollow-moe 10mo ago
  So it means they got lectures and training beforehand. Which currently neither (the vast majority of) parents nor public education is properly providing for computer usage. Main difference being there's no licence required to access the internet, for the best and the worst.

AshamedCaptain 10mo ago

Devil's advocate: what is the difference between "social media" and a website very much like this one? When can I look forward to having to give a DNA test to read HN?

Pooge 10mo ago
The main difference in my view is the personalized algorithm that determines what to feed you next. HackerNews has an algorithm but it's not personalized—i.e. everyone sees the same thing.
- AshamedCaptain 10mo ago
  My own website has a bulletin board that offers a personalized list of messages after you login: whatever threads you have not yet read. And so do many other websites of this style. So this cannot be a differentiating aspect.
  - adamnemecek 10mo ago
    They are very different.
  - Workaccount2 10mo ago
    >So this cannot be a differentiating aspect. Now explain that nuance to an 80 yr old law maker who hates the damn email.
    - AshamedCaptain 10mo ago
      For the record, that is exactly my point . I do not want yet another sword of Damocles for websites, even less if it depends on the mood of a clueless judge.
    - seszett 10mo ago
      Not to say that they are technically literate, but the average age of French lawmakers (which are just the members of parliament) is 50 years old. It's actually the same as the average age of voting-age French citizens, so they are quite representative on this regard.

snowpid 10mo ago

I am convinced that the current world wide rise of (right wing ) populist movements is mainly caused by social media. By regulating like this my hope is we can reduce their spread.

andrewinardeer 10mo ago
What's wrong with right wing populist movements? They come and go just like left wing populist movements. The pendulum swinging across both the political spectrums over election cycles is a thing of beauty.
- snowpid 10mo ago
  both are a threat to democracy like we see on Trump.
  - logicchains 10mo ago
    Populist movements are the opposite of a threat to democracy; they represent the actual views of the people, not the views of some cultured elite. Real democracy, not some republican elitism.
    - plaidthunder 10mo ago
      The flip side of that, is that the same sense of urgency that flings populists into power also compels them to start to bend the systems that got them there in order to maintain power. After all, if the evil "elites" -- as if populists don't comprise their own elite class -- ever gain power again they could undo all of our "progress". You can see this tendency in how some red states, like Texas, have tried to furiously redraw their maps to maintain control of the US house. They are doing this because they fear that "the people" will not choose to give them a majority again. They even admit to it openly. https://www.politico.com/news/2025/07/15/trump-five-seat-pickup-redraw-texas-congressional-map-00454301 https://www.politico.com/news/2025/07/15/trump-five-seat-pic... California had a state wide vote to do the same thing. But they were acting in kind. Tit-for-tat is a reasonable strategy what Texas did. Though it remains a shame that it came to it. Cumulatively, these actions represent a breakdown of the machinery in our system that allows us to course correct. It's not healthy for anyone. Planned markets lead to bad economic outcomes, why? Because when you fix prices you lose the ability to react appropriately to changing conditions. Managed democracies lead to bad social outcomes for the same reason. You need reasonably fair elections in order to sense the condition of the population and react to it. Yet, populist rhetoric ups the emotional ante to the point where it starts to convince people that it's a good idea to subvert this. The old "Flight 93 Election" essay from 2016 is the perfect case study in this sort of absurd rhetorical escalation. Where they literally said, if Trump doesn't win America is doomed forever. We have to "charge the cockpit" before the plane crashes, so to speak. Yet, when he lost in 2020, America didn't end forever. It's all been a farce and a grab for power.

astrobe_ 10mo ago

The question is how this is implemented, in particular age verification. It's usual to say that MPs are old people that don't understand current technologies, but in law preparation committees they appear to be well aware; in particular, they mentioned a "double-anonymity" system where the site requesting your age wouldn't know your name, and the entity serving age requests wouldn't know which site it is for. They are also aware that people walk-around age verification checks with e.g. fake ID cards, possibly AI generated. I'm not sure if it is actually doable reliabily, and I'm not sure either that the MPs that will have to vote the law will know the topic as well as the MPs participating in these committees. I would personally consider other options like a one-button admin config for computers/smartphones/tablets that restricts access according to age (6-14, 15-18) and requiring online service providers to announce their "rating" in HTTP headers. Hackers will certainly object that young hackers could bypass this, but like copy-protection, the mission can be considered complete when the vast majority of people are prevented from doing what they should not do. Alternatively one could consider the creation of a top-level domain with a "code of content" (which could include things like "chat control") enforced by controlling entity. Then again, an OS-level account config button could restrict all Internet accesses to this domain. Perhaps an national agency could simply grant a "child safe" label to operating systems that comply to this. This type of solutions would I think also be useful in schools (e.g. school-provided devices), although they are also talking about severely limiting screen-time at school. For the french speakers, see: [1] https://videos.assemblee-nationale.fr/video.17950525_69426841ba445.commission-des-affaires-culturelles--table-ronde-sur-le-theme--proteger-les-jeunes-face-aux-ecrans-17-decembre-2025 https://videos.assemblee-nationale.fr/video.17950525_6942684... [2] https://videos.assemblee-nationale.fr/video.17952051_6942761feec7e.commission-des-lois--mme-marie-laure-denis-presidente-de-la-cnil-17-decembre-2025 https://videos.assemblee-nationale.fr/video.17952051_6942761...

logicchains 10mo ago
The only way they could successfully implement it is with constant live video surveillance, otherwise parents who oppose the ban can easily get around it. Which is going to be at least a double digit percentage of the population. And the police don't even have the resources to investigate theft and robbery, let alone go after millions of parents for helping their children create social media accounts.

bbbhltz 10mo ago

I'm one of the weirdos that should be on board with this, but I'm against it. This will do harm to marginalized youth and push younger people to lie and find ways around the ban. Plus, we saw that in Australia that the lobby behind the ban was in fact an ad agency that makes ads for gambling apps. Here is France, the ban is probably just a way to avoid legislation against companies selling crap that isn't for kids like vape pens and sports gambling apps.

everfrustrated 10mo ago

A ban on social media for children is a different way of saying ID Verification for the entire population. They are implicitly the same thing. You can't exclude children without first verifying _everyone_ and from there excluding people who match age < approved. This is basic logic. If you were a cynical person you could imagine this is actually politicians wanting to bring in an ID law and using "think of the children" as the social justification for it. If you're a conspiracy theorist you'd wonder why Apple and Google have now added the ability to upload and link your passport and other real id into their respective app wallets. How long before your phones browser is digitally signing all your social media posts with your ID...

hexbin010 10mo ago
Yup the aim is to de-anonymise the Internet for increased policing/spying abilities > How long before your phones browser is digitally signing all your social media posts with your ID... Under 10 years I'd say at this rate
onraglanroad 10mo ago
> If you were a cynical person you could imagine this is actually politicians wanting to bring in an ID law Sounds like a good theory, apart from the minor flaw that France already has ID cards: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Identity_card_(France) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Identity_card_(France)
- nephihaha 10mo ago
  Gaming platforms are already doing it.
someNameIG 10mo ago
I'm Australian and neither any Meta platform nor Reddit have asked to verify my ID, as I presume both just inferred that I was over 16 and that was adequate.
- immibis 10mo ago

RickJWagner 10mo ago

Good for France! I wish my country (USA) would adapt similar laws.

nephihaha 10mo ago
I love the way everything is forced online but you have to use state ID to chat with your friends now.
viktorcode 10mo ago
What do you expect this law will to achieve?
- ludston 10mo ago
  Fewer teen suicides

deleted 10mo ago

[deleted]

herunan 10mo ago

This is just cop out legislation. I wanna see laws targeting addictive design systems and harmful content. Social media is only part of the problem. There’s so much that falls out of the social media definition. And regardless, kids are not stupid… VPNs, proxies, etc are easy to circumvent with.

amelius 10mo ago
Step 1 should be to kill the ad based monetization model.
soperj 10mo ago
Don't let the perfect be the enemy of good. Who cares if many can get around it, if the majority can't or won't, then it kills the network effects.
- Ritewut 10mo ago
  I don't think this is good though. It's a police state masquerading as "SAVE THE CHILDREN!"
  - soperj 10mo ago
    yes, the police state is preventing Mark Zuckerberg from being a trillionaire.
    - sethammons 10mo ago
      I'm sorry. What? This legislation is very much giving more power to the government over what its citizens cannot do. The real impetus is control by the powers that be. The ideal citizen for an authoritarian would be fully controllable via digital means. A digital id that is networked with services is a wet dream for authoritarians. What does this have to do with limiting Zuck's net worth? Because less kids will see less ads? How much will this reduce his net worth? If we took licenses from kids and had them wait until 18, would you be claiming this is to prevent Musk from gaining more wealth?

Simulacra 10mo ago

This is such a fools errand, there will always be services popping up faster than regulators can ban them. This won't stop a lot of the kids. So wasteful.

fidotron 10mo ago
That's not how they think. They will ban everything and only allow that which is explicitly permitted.

meroes 10mo ago

More!

aucisson_masque 10mo ago

I remember when I was a kid I listened to radio until very late in to the night. Unless they want to remove all of technology from 10pm to 8am, this bill is going to be ridiculous. Teenager and kid will always find better things to do than sleep.

immibis 10mo ago
Famously, there's no point banning kids from buying alcohol because sometimes adults buy it for them.

triceratops 10mo ago

I'm going to restate my proposed age verification system here. I've posted it several times as a comment on this website. It works as follows: 1. A private company, let's call it AgeVerify, issues scratch-off cards with unique tokens on them. They are basically like gift cards. 2. AgeVerify's scratch-off cards are sold exclusively in IRL stores. Preferably liquor stores, adult stores, and/or tobacco/vape shops. Places that are licensed and check ID. 3. Anyone who wants to verify their age online can purchase a token at a store. The store must only demand ID if the buyer appears to be a minor (similar to alcohol or tobacco purchases). The store must never store the ID in any form whatsoever. 4. Giving or selling these tokens to a minor is a criminal offense. If a store does it, they lose their liquor or tobacco license. Treat it just like giving a minor alcohol or tobacco. 4a. Run public service announcement campaigns to communicate that giving an AgeVerify token to a child is like handing them a cigarette. There should be a clear social taboo associated with the legal ban. 5. The buyer of the AgeVerify token enters it into their account on whatever social media or adult website they want to use. The website validates the code with AgeVerify. 6. Once validated, the code is good for 1 year (or 6 months or 3 months, adjust based on how stringent you want to make it) - then it expires and a new one must be purchased. 7. A separate token is required for each website/each account. 8. The website is responsible for enforcing no account sharing. No identifying information is stored anywhere. Kids find it very hard to access age-restricted materials online, just like the vast majority of kids don't easily have access to alcohol or cigarettes.

postepowanieadm 10mo ago
Nah, EIDAS2 got you covered - you use your european identity wallet.
- triceratops 10mo ago
  The beauty of my proposal is you don't need that.
  - 9dev 10mo ago
    But instead, you need this other thing, which requires elaborate infrastructure and new standards and regulations

like_any_other 10mo ago

Ban for children, and mandatory deanonymiziation [1] for everyone else. [1] At best with a "trust us we won't tattle" "privacy" architecture.

egorfine 10mo ago

I'm pretty sure it is going to pass. Too much of a coordinated efforts between western countries, thus it cannot fail. The decisions have been made and your voice pretty much doesn't matter.

JumpCrisscross 10mo ago
> The decisions have been made and your voice pretty much doesn't matter Source for these bans being unpopular?
- agentifysh 10mo ago
  The confusion you are displaying is because you are not cognizant of whats going on throughout the world particularly in advanced economies that have opened their doors to all forms of migration legal and illegal. The timing of this coincides with countries in particular have seen a major rise in anti-migration sentiments which have become very fashionable and popular among young men in particular as polls show a global trend of men under 30s are shifting towards right wing with women towards leftwing. Suddenly, they decide NOW is the time to stop despite the fact that they've allowed young people to be exposed to all sorts of "dangerous content" and algorithms for decades, in the late 90s and early 2000s as teenagers we had uncensored access to the internet, warez, anarchy, shock as they have circumventions widely shared among each other today. In short, these countries are so concerned about a civil unrest in particular between religious groups that are perceived to have "overstayed their welcome" that they are outright trying to shutdown online discourse both legitimate and exaggerated. Europe, in particular UK, are on the brink of a major civil war as per intelligence reports and the ban for the young won't be the last but that the net would be cast even wider. It's a last ditched effort bandaid solution to keep the dam from bursting. With the backdrop of Keir Starmer's threats to extradite Americans and jail people for posting grievances against the demographic crisis, you can see where Europe and other advanced economies even in places like Korea mirror the trends, conflicts and draconian laws to buy time for the inevitable. If we want to keep this debate going there has to be an understanding of the political context and direction that can only be realized through inference and intuition. They will never openly announce true motives as that would hinder the objective. The comments I am seeing are awfully similar to the confusion and fierce debate I see around wrestling control of TikTok, which have largely been blamed on China, but the concern around uncensored videos of atrocities committed in the middle east reaching hundreds of millions of young people that has shifted steadfast opinions of a certain country which for decades were positive, now show significant departure among age brackets within the same political camp which shocked a lot of old people from that same side. Perception is everything and the question "asking for a source on if these bans popular" completely misses the mark and irrelevant, rather the more interesting question is, "will these bans that limit freedom of information and speech escalate and proliferate in the near future and whether France, Australia, Korea is just the start?" " will the countries reviewing ban like new zealand, greece, canada invite more countries to join the trend?" " why are these bans being accelerated in countries that have seen a large wave of migrations that are causing major frictions?"

wtcactus 10mo ago

Look, I’m all for not letting children into social media apps. But that’s the job of the parents, not the state. Besides, like many point out, this is just a way to deanonymize the web for everyone. Why is the state always meddling with the citizens lives and personal responsibilities, and why do we let them? Do we really appreciate so much this nanny state?

jhanschoo 10mo ago
I don't think you've thought through the sentiment "But that’s the job of the parents, not the state" very well. Parents frequently want limited Internet access for their older preteen/early teen children, don't trust the private sector to implement this limited Internet access, and don't have the time to enforce this limited access themselves as they have to go to work and their children have to go to school anyway (and their parents want this limited access for them in school as well). There are also easier options of no personal Internet access, and unrestricted access, but I suppose these are not very good for this stage of development. As citizens we like to delegate aspects of our lives to the government; for example, I'm responsible for commuting to work on time, but we have delegated the maintenance of roads or public transport to the government, and this is something that could also be done by the private sector (private roads, private transportation), and ends up as a constant negotiation between citizen and government. Some polities like Germany and I think Sweden have subsidized education for children in exchange for mandatory public schooling by an institution either owned by the state or extremely highly regulated by the state.
dennis_jeeves2 10mo ago
>But that’s the job of the parents, not the state. Agree with you. But you'd be surprised at the number of people who think that the state ought to do things for them, including raising their kids.
- immibis 10mo ago
  What do you want to do with kids who happen to be born to incompetent parents? Do they deserve to just have fucked lives? And the state is currently pushing social media onto kids and parents, should it maybe stop doing that, at least?

diaspora72 10mo ago

If you want to know what is really driving this NOW, listen to this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g1RpYGJsp-A https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g1RpYGJsp-A

llmslave2 10mo ago

I was going to write a comment about how stupid and harmful these bans are for multiple reasons (including being entirely ineffective at their stated goals anyways), but honestly, who cares at this point. It's clear to me that the internet is dying and will either look dramatically different in the next decade or cease to exist as it's overtaken by bots and AI. And I'm starting to think that's a good thing for humans and society. Perhaps we will return to the real world. (We will still need the internet for communication, but hopefully far less for entertainment etc).

loup-vaillant 10mo ago
Here's the thing though: they're not killing entertainment — at least not in general. They're killing communication.
- dyauspitr 10mo ago
  It’s all just AI and people slop. Real person to person communication won’t be effected.
- llmslave2 10mo ago
  Are they? I don't see FaceTime, WhatsApp, Apple Messages etc being affected. The idiot politicians might in the future and will need to be fought, but I'm at the point where I want to see Facebook, Youtube, and X die.
  - loup-vaillant 9mo ago
    I've heard just today of England trying to hit messaging apps with mandatory image scans — ostensibly to avoid the transmission of unsolicited dick pics, which more than one teenage girl have been the target of, but in practice may have far reaching consequences. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y893SFA0iOk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y893SFA0iOk I am at the point where I'm watching out for messaging apps breaking actual end-to-end encryption (sending data based on local scans definitely applies there, even if the data is just sending a red flag once in a blue moon). And you can bet the second that happens, I'm out. One last message to all my contacts to tell them, and that's it. And if things get real bad, like, actual private communications become illegal, I know ways to get around that: https://elligator.org/ https://elligator.org/

dyauspitr 10mo ago

Every nation in the world needs this.

casey2 10mo ago

Any kind of government encroachment into the time of it's citizens is theft. Many of their citizens chose American social media because they prefer American values. This offended the nationalists so they are simply going to ban American sites and try to make their own inferior ones. Traditional media (Murdoch) and traditional gambling lobbied the hardest for these laws (of course these are anything but traditional). This is a billion dollar gimme to newscorp, but they will probably still fail to pick up the younger audience because they can't compete. In America we have freedom of religion and freedom of association, we used to have the freedom to put whatever we please in our own bodies and minds.

immibis 10mo ago
Absolute nonsense. American social media is used because it's designed to addict children and adults. Same reason people gamble, and buy advertised products.

brandonmenc 10mo ago

These laws are like requiring a license to watch R-rated movies on your cable TV. How is this even enforceable? Block the sites at the country level - good luck with that - or stfu. This is never going to work, and in 20 years we'll all be laughing at this omg get the genie back in the bottle legislation.

fleroviumna 10mo ago

[dead]

anthk 10mo ago

"Children" (teens, actually) could just join their own social media sites. Or use proxies, or whatever. Kids at 13 and 14 are pretty much on a different level. Back in the day we used to self host games, networks, kick pedos away (specially girls which made good laughs on them and dealing with them as dirty scum) and so on. What _older_ kids need it's both accountability and tools to kick idiots away between their own group.

cowboylowrez 10mo ago

We need to ban internet for humans under 18. There is nothing of value on the internet that can't be provided with a few cds worth of text and low resolution imagery, maybe a gig or so. Better yet, a decent set of old school encyclopedias is fine, and give the kids a dumb phone with parent white listed phone numbers and the kids have all they need.

aziaziazi 10mo ago
Agree. Same for adults.
- cowboylowrez 9mo ago
  hackernews actually uses the internet

deleted 9mo ago

[deleted]

pabs3 9mo ago

Apparently the ban in Australia has been ineffective. Source; a mate's kid