Social media bans are thin legal layers, but parenting...

France’s decision to ban children under 15 from social media will appeal to many parents who have watched phones become a constant presence in young people’s lives. The concerns behind the law are understandable. Children are exposed to cyberbullying, sexual exploitation, violent material, harmful challenges, unrealistic beauty standards and algorithms designed to keep them online.

However, passing a law is easier than enforcing it.

Teenagers can change their dates of birth, use accounts belonging to older relatives, access shared devices, move to smaller platforms or find other ways around age restrictions. Not to mention free use of VPNs and the prevalence of AI. Heck, most personal computers come with VPNs already installed. Any system strong enough to identify every child may also require adults to provide identification, facial images or personal information simply to access legal online services. That raises legitimate concerns about privacy, data protection and errors in age verification.

France is not wrong to act, but it should be honest about the limits of a blanket ban. Australia introduced a social media age restriction for children under 16 in December 2025. Millions of accounts were restricted, but questions soon emerged about weak age checks and the number of services that remained outside the ban. Children could still access gaming platforms (and the social media layers therein), messaging services and publicly available content.

Social media can cause real harm, but its effects differ from one child to another. For some, it increases anxiety, isolation or exposure to abuse. For others, it provides friendship, support and a sense of belonging that may not exist elsewhere. The greatest weakness in the debate is the tendency to focus on the phone while ignoring what is happening around the child.

Young people face serious dangers outside the home and away from social media. These include bullying at school, drugs, sexual abuse, violence, family conflict, poverty, neglect and limited access to mental health care. Closing a social media account does not make them disappear. This is why parental responsibility cannot be removed from the discussion.

Parents cannot give children unrestricted access to smartphones, allow devices into bedrooms every night, avoid learning which platforms they use and then expect government or technology companies to provide complete protection. Platforms have responsibilities. Schools and governments have responsibilities. None of them can replace an attentive parent or caregiver.

A total ban could even create a false sense of security. Some parents may assume their children are no longer online when they have simply become better at hiding it. A child who secretly bypasses the rules may also be less likely to report harassment or exploitation.

France’s law should therefore be viewed as one layer of protection, not a complete solution. Social media companies should be required to improve age checks, reduce addictive features, protect personal information and respond quickly to abuse. Governments should also invest in mental health services, youth programs, sports, culture and safe recreational spaces.

The same lesson applies to St. Maarten. The discussion should not be limited to whether social media should be banned. Communities must also examine what young people have available when the phone is taken away. A law may delay a child’s entry into social media, and that delay may be useful. But success cannot be measured only by how many accounts are closed. It must be measured by whether children are safer, healthier, better supported and better prepared for the digital world they will inevitably enter.

France can set the legal boundary. Parents must still set the household boundary.

‍