Technology & Science
EU Parliament Votes 483-92 to Urge 16+ Social Media Age Limit
On 27 Nov 2025, MEPs adopted a non-binding resolution pressing the European Commission to impose a bloc-wide rule barring under-16s from social-media and similar platforms unless parents opt in.
Focusing Facts
- Vote tally: 483 in favour, 92 against, 86 abstentions (European Parliament plenary, Strasbourg, 27 Nov 2025).
- The resolution cites Australia’s 10 Dec 2025 under-16 social-media ban as a template and asks the Commission to study it before drafting legislation.
- MEPs endorsed deployment of an EU age-verification app tied to the forthcoming European Digital Identity Wallet despite privacy objections from some parties.
Context
Europe has periodically drawn red lines around youth and new media—e.g., the 1989 ‘Television without Frontiers’ Directive that set watershed hours for violent content—each time balancing protection against censorship fears. This vote signals a continuation of that regulatory arc, now extending child-protection logic from broadcast to algorithmic feeds. It also reflects two wider trends: (1) the post-Cambridge Analytica swing toward hard-law oversight of Big Tech, and (2) the revival of age-based paternalism last seen in early 20th-century labour and film-rating codes. Whether Brussels can harmonise 27 national regimes and deploy privacy-preserving biometric checks will determine if the vote becomes a milestone like the 1995 Data-Protection Directive—or another stalled initiative. Over a 100-year horizon, the attempt illustrates how each technological leap (radio, television, Internet, AI) triggers a societal renegotiation of childhood, autonomy and surveillance; success or failure here will shape the precedent for regulating AI companions and immersive worlds that the next generation will inhabit.
Perspectives
EU-aligned child-protection advocates and supportive outlets
e.g., Biometric Update, Morocco World News — Portray a 16-plus social-media age floor as an overdue shield against addiction, manipulative algorithms and mental-health harms, urging EU-wide rules and even personal liability for tech bosses. Closely echo EU lawmakers’ messaging and may gloss over privacy pitfalls or member-state sovereignty worries because stronger regulation bolsters institutional relevance and political capital.
Tech privacy-focused consumer tech press
e.g., TechNadu, TechRadar — Warn that mandatory age-verification schemes needed for an under-16 ban would jeopardise user privacy, expose IDs to hacks and push people toward VPNs. Leverages privacy alarm to attract readership and sells security products; tends to sidestep evidence of child harm and casts regulation as primarily a data-surveillance threat.
Global digital-policy explainers emphasising compliance complexity
e.g., CTN News l Chiang Rai Times — Present the swelling maze of ‘Digital Safety’ laws—including the EU’s under-16 push—as a practical rulebook users must obey, stressing varied national standards and steep fines for missteps. By framing restrictions as inevitable and focusing on how to stay ‘out of trouble,’ they may normalise censorship risks and underplay deeper civil-liberty debates to maintain an informative, how-to tone for broad audiences.