We’re launching a four-part series examining every major approach to protecting children from social media and the tradeoffs each one involves. This week: government bans. They protect all children but require surveillance infrastructure.

Meanwhile, the U.S. Senate is advancing legislation to ban under-13s, France wants its under-15 ban by September, and the UK voted for age verification within a year. The policy momentum makes understanding these tradeoffs more urgent.

Here's what you need to know.

Finding Wired Parents useful? Forward this to a parent friend who's also trying to navigate digital parenting decisions. They can subscribe here

Over the next four weeks, we're examining every major approach to protecting children from social media and why each one involves significant tradeoffs.

Week 1 (now live): Government bans like Australia's. They protect all children but require surveillance infrastructure.

Week 2: Parental opt-out. It protects your child completely but only works for engaged parents.

Week 3: Platform regulation. It can reduce specific harms but faces economic limitations.

Week 4: Why the problem is bigger than any single approach can solve and what that means for your family.

This isn't about prescribing the "right" answer. It's about understanding what each choice actually costs, so you can decide which tradeoffs fit your family.

So here's where we are: Australia removed 4.7 million under-16 accounts in two weeks. France wants an under-15 ban in place by September. The UK House of Lords just voted to require age verification within a year. Egypt, Denmark, Spain, and Norway are all moving in the same direction.

Governments have decided that leaving this decision to individual families isn't working.

The mental health evidence has been mounting for years now. One study of over 10,000 children found those who received smartphones at age 12 showed 31% higher depression rates and 62% higher sleep problems by age 14. Instagram's own internal research found the platform makes body image worse for one in three teenage girls.

But here's what really shifted the debate: 90% of under-13s on social media have parental permission. Most parents aren't fighting to keep their kids off platforms. They're actively helping them create accounts.

Even if you hold the line with your own child, they still see content on friends' phones at school. There's real pressure when "everyone else" is on Instagram or TikTok. One family can't solve a problem that exists because everyone else is participating.

So what do bans actually require? To enforce "no under-16s," platforms need to verify everyone's age. That means you, your teenager, everyone. ID scans, facial recognition, credit card checks, some form of proof. This infrastructure doesn't go away when your child turns 16. It becomes permanent. Everyone using social media has to prove who they are to platforms that already collect massive amounts of personal data.

There's an uncomfortable parallel here. Egypt announced it will regulate children's social media using almost identical language to France and Australia: protecting children from "digital chaos." Egypt also has a history of blocking websites, arresting bloggers, and restricting online expression. When countries with very different approaches to free speech adopt the same child protection measures, it raises questions. The age verification systems being built don't care about intent. Once they exist, they can be used for the stated purpose (protecting children) or for other purposes (controlling information, tracking users).

Here's the tradeoff: Government bans address the mental health crisis and protect all children, not just those with engaged parents. But they require building surveillance systems that track everyone's identity permanently. You're weighing two serious concerns: social media's documented mental health harms against permanent identity verification infrastructure. Neither option is perfect. Both involve real costs.

Read Part One: When Governments Ban Social Media for Children →

Next week: Maybe government intervention isn't necessary.

Maybe the solution is parents simply saying "no", protecting their own children without building surveillance infrastructure.

But if that works, why aren't parents doing it?

And what about children whose parents won't protect them?

First a word from our sponsor:

“If I hear bad news about the stock market one more time, I’m gonna be sick.”

We get it. Investors are rattled, costs keep rising, and the world keeps getting weirder.

So, who’s better at handling their money than the uber-rich?

Have 3 long-term investing tips UBS (Swiss bank) shared for shaky times:

The catch? Most alternatives aren’t open to everyday investors

That’s why Masterworks exists: 70,000+ members invest in shares of something that’s appreciated more overall than the S&P 500 over 30 years without moving in lockstep with it.*

Contemporary and post war art by legends like Banksy, Basquiat, and more.

Sounds crazy, but it’s real. One way to help reclaim control this week:

Skip waitlist.

_{*Past performance is not indicative of future returns. Investing involves risk. Reg A disclosures: masterworks.com/cd}

The U.S. Senate is advancing legislation to ban under-13s from social media, with bipartisan support and overwhelming committee approval. But critics argue the bill would take power away from parents and hand it to Big Tech instead.

The bill: The Kids Off Social Media Act (KOSMA) passed the Senate Commerce Committee in February 2025 and is moving toward a full Senate vote. Sponsored by Senators Ted Cruz and Brian Schatz, it would ban under-13s entirely, prohibit algorithmic recommendations for under-17s, and require federally funded schools to limit social media access.

How enforcement changes: Current law (COPPA) requires platforms to act when they have "actual knowledge" a user is under 13. KOSMA changes this to "reasonable knowledge," meaning platforms must act if there's a "high likelihood" based on circumstances. A child leaving a comment mentioning their "6th grade teacher" would trigger platform obligations.

What this likely means: To avoid liability under the "reasonable knowledge" standard, platforms won't try to determine what circumstances indicate a child is using an account. They'll require everyone to prove their age through ID scans, facial recognition, or credit card checks.

The data complication: Electronic Frontier Foundation research shows 90% of under-13s on social media have parental permission, with 70% of parents helping create accounts. Senator Cruz says the bill "meets parents where they're at" because it's hard being the "one parent" who says no. EFF counters that the bill ignores that most parents are making intentional decisions about supervised access.

Two competing narratives are emerging. Governments argue 90% of under-13s having access despite existing bans proves individual parental choice has failed. Critics argue those same statistics show parents are making deliberate choices about supervised access, and universal age verification eliminates that parental discretion while building surveillance infrastructure.

KOSMA contains no exceptions for parental consent, family accounts, or educational use.

For your family: If you've allowed supervised access or family accounts, platforms may soon require age verification even for adult accounts if they detect child use. The family YouTube account where your 12-year-old watches science videos could require ID verification to stay active.

If you've been holding the line at 13, policy momentum is increasingly on your side. But the enforcement mechanism (universal age verification) means everyone surrenders privacy data, not just children.

Read the full analysis →

France: September target

French President Emmanuel Macron is pushing for an under-15 social media ban to be implemented by September 2026, at the start of the next school year. He's asked his government to fast-track legislation through the Senate.

"The brains of our children and our teenagers are not for sale," Macron declared. "The emotions of our children and our teenagers are not for sale or to be manipulated. Neither by American platforms, nor by Chinese algorithms."

The framing matters here. France's health watchdog reports that one in two teenagers spends between two and five hours daily on smartphones, with 58% using their devices for social networks. The report highlighted harmful effects including reduced self-esteem and increased exposure to content associated with self-harm, drug use, and suicide.

Macron also announced plans to ban mobile phones in French high schools, extending existing restrictions in primary and middle schools. This isn't just about social media. It's a comprehensive approach to adolescent technology use during developmental years.

UK: Parliament shifts position

The UK House of Lords voted 261-150 to require age verification for social media within one year, effectively banning under-16s from platforms.

This represents a shift for the UK, which has been taking a more methodical approach. The Department for Science, Innovation and Technology recently commissioned eight universities to study how to properly research the relationship between smartphones, social media, and children's wellbeing. That project won't deliver findings for 2-3 years. Parliament isn't waiting.

Ofcom, the UK communications regulator, already has age-verification powers under existing law. The infrastructure for enforcement exists. What's changing is the political will to use it.

Egypt: Similar language, different context

Egypt's Parliament announced Sunday it will develop legislation to regulate children's social media use, aiming to combat what lawmakers called "digital chaos." The move follows similar restrictions in Australia, France, and the UK, though Egypt hasn't yet specified age limits or enforcement mechanisms.

Egypt's inclusion in this global pattern matters. When Western democracies and countries with very different approaches to free speech use identical child protection language, the age verification systems being built don't distinguish intent.

What this shows: Governments across different political systems have concluded that individual family decisions aren't solving the problem. France is moving in eight months. The UK has given itself a year. Egypt is joining the pattern. Whether you're directly affected by these specific laws or not, the momentum is clear.

What parents need to know: Wired Parents

While France and Australia rush to implement bans, the UK government has commissioned eight universities (including York, Cambridge, Bristol, and Oxford) to figure out how to properly study the relationship between smartphones, social media, and children's wellbeing.

The project won't answer whether these technologies harm kids. Instead, it will identify which research methods actually work and what data sources can establish causal relationships rather than mere correlation. Technology Secretary Peter Kyle says the goal is to "build a trusted evidence base for future action." The findings will guide the next generation of studies over the next 2-3 years.

For more articles from the week, head over to Wired-Parents.com