France's court just blocked Macron's plan to ban kids from social media

[Daniel Sims]

The big picture: As various governments grapple with how to rein in the effects of social media on children, many, including several European countries, are considering an outright youth ban. However, France has just demonstrated that balancing such legislation with constitutional freedoms remains tricky.

France's highest court struck down a law this week that would have banned children under 15 from accessing social media networks such as Facebook and X. The legislation had previously sailed through the lower chambers of government with unusually broad bipartisan support.

In addition to blocking social media for children and young teenagers, the bill would have banned smartphone use in schools. Resources such as Wikipedia, GitHub, and scientific directories would have been exempt.

The National Assembly had approved the bill in January, voting 130 to 21, before the Senate passed it in July and the Assembly voted in favor again the same day by a margin of 279 to 81. President Emmanuel Macron, championing the legislation as a defense against American tech companies and Chinese algorithms, sought to fast-track the bill into force before the beginning of the school year in September.

However, France's Constitutional Council ruled that the law infringed on freedom of expression and communication. The president now hopes to revise and reintroduce the ban before spring. If it passes, it will likely be one of his final major accomplishments before his term ends next year.

The law would make France the first European Union country to ban children from social media. The Norwegian and British parliaments plan to introduce similar legislation sometime this year, and Greece aims to enforce a ban in 2027. Spain is also weighing the issue.

Australia attempted to set an early example late last year, but recent data suggests that keeping kids off social media is easier said than done. Studies suggest that as many as 85% of under-16s who had accounts before the ban can still access them. While some underage users circumvented age gates with VPNs (which France might also target), most never encountered any restrictions.

While regulators accuse social media companies of dragging their heels on the issue, verifying users' ages involves steep technical, security, and privacy-related challenges. Prior studies have shown that facial scans struggle to estimate teenagers' ages, and uploading government IDs invites the risk of data breaches.

Permalink to story:

France's court just blocked Macron's plan to ban kids from social media

 

[Squid Surprise]

Small victory for freedom… but alas, only temporary…

Just remember, when you ban kids from something, they’re the ones who will harbor resentment when they grow up - and they grow up fast.

 

[PaladinNH]

Teacher here, so I'll bite. My state (US) banned them in all public schools, and I was initially against it, mostly because I believed this control needed to rest with the individual towns, districts, and schools who knew their populations best. Particularly, at the high school (14+) level where students are already working jobs and should be learning how to manage a device both in their discipline and in the real world.

HOWEVER, I teach 11-14s and I have to say it has been wonderful having the law to support us. Kids, teachers, and administrators take it far more seriously when it's a universally accepted principle that the phones are away. I also think the technology is way too powerful for under 12 and under to be accessing independently anyway, especially is a society where everyone accepts AI generated responses as truth.

But as a computer guy like the rest of us, I also miss the age of kids learning COMPUTER proficiency. Now they just know phones and can't find their way around a computer anymore (even though they're 1-to-1 and bring one to class every day).

 

[PaladinNH]

Small victory for freedom… but alas, only temporary…

Just remember, when you ban kids from something, they’re the ones who will harbor resentment when they grow up - and they grow up fast.

They're supposed to be 13+ to have a Facebook anyway, so we're really just talking about 2 years here. Social media is a terrible place for a tween. Also, most of the kids I talk to, especially the older ones, also seem to understand pretty fast how unhealthy it is, but can't get themselves off of it.

 

[WhiteLeaff]

I think it would be a good thing not to have cell phones at school, or at least in the classroom.

Banning them completely is communism though.

 

[The Talking Tech]

That means France is like the U.S, they don't know better...too bad.

 

[pnntmp]

I think it would be a good thing not to have cell phones at school, or at least in the classroom.

Banning them completely is communism though.

It's more nuanced than that.
First of all it's about social media, not cell phones. Social media can be accessed from any sort of device.
Is it communism to ban cigarettes and alcohol for kids? I don't think so, and social media is probably even more harmful.

My kids are 16+ already and seamlessly passed through all that, but we have many friends with younger kids and it's not at all that simple. You can't just hand them a plain Nokia with 1 square inch screen, they'll be ridiculed, which is equally bad. I mean it's not something the majority of parents can handle on their own, establishing some restrictions to protect kids is necessary.

 

[Megalomaniac]

I think it would be a good thing not to have cell phones at school, or at least in the classroom.

Banning them completely is communism though.

When you're a teacher who is held accountable by test scores, let's see how you feel then.

 

[Megalomaniac]

NY state banned smartphones from the classrooms in September 2025.

#1 How many fight videos did you see recorded inside NYC schools last year?
#2 How many illegal, sexually explicit videos did you see recorded inside NYC schools last year?
#3 How many teachers did you see being recorded without their permission and put on IG or Snapchat last year?

Cyberbullying declined by the way.

The answer is NO - kids under 18 should not have smartphones in school at all.

When you're a teacher held accountable about test scores, I guarantee you'll feel the same way.

When you're a lawyer like my younger sibling who has to defend minors from charges pending for sexually explicit or criminal videos that they themselves made, recorded and disseminated then you'll understand.

I applaud the governments of the world who finally took action and denied smartphones from schools and simultaneously denied minors from social media. It hurts Smuckerberg and Musky smell's pockets. I don't care.

And no there's nothing "communist" or "fascist" about it - that just shows me you don't know the definition of words.

 

[pnntmp]

NY state banned smartphones from the classrooms in September 2025.

#1 How many fight videos did you see recorded inside NYC schools last year?
#2 How many illegal, sexually explicit videos did you see recorded inside NYC schools last year?
#3 How many teachers did you see being recorded without their permission and put on IG or Snapchat last year?

Cyberbullying declined by the way.

Not seeing fight videos does not mean there were less fights, it just means less fights were recorded.
Same for illegal, sexually explicit etc.
Cyberbullying may have declined, but what about actual bullying?

Not seeing the problem anymore does not mean it disappeared.

I'm not trying to prove you wrong, just saying - banning smartphones probably did not reduce bad stuff, it merely reduced bad stuff captured on video.

 

[Megalomaniac]

Not seeing fight videos does not mean there were less fights, it just means less fights were recorded.
Same for illegal, sexually explicit etc.
Cyberbullying may have declined, but what about actual bullying?

Not seeing the problem anymore does not mean it disappeared.

I'm not trying to prove you wrong, just saying - banning smartphones probably did not reduce bad stuff, it merely reduced bad stuff captured on video.

And not having the phones made it harder to coordinate the meeting for these things to be recorded.

 

[BlackyNoir]

The article is a bit superficial.

Specifically the Council said there wasn't enough evidence of harm, and that the remedy is unbalanced, going way too far for that what evidence of harm there is. I.e. one can't remove big fundamental freedoms for small things.

So the law went into immediate rework, either to better present the evidence of harm, or to limit its scope, or both.

 

[rmcrys]

Small victory for freedom… but alas, only temporary…

Just remember, when you ban kids from something, they’re the ones who will harbor resentment when they grow up - and they grow up fast.

Completely wrong, what you mean is: victory from predators and influencers. If this was smoking, your sentence is the a equivalent of "freedom to smoke" as if that was a good thing... Which is not.

Kids are very sensible and naive to manipulations, that is what is very easy to happen as bullying, unknown adults saying they are kids, etc..

Yes, freedom to being manipulated.

 

[urielejh]

Children need to be guarded, they don't have all the rights to decide what's better for themselves. If parents can't provide that educational safety, then government should. For both children's sake - including mental health - and society's (due to future socio-economical issues related to youngsters problems...).
They don't need socials, they need real, genuine social relationships.
They don't need phones at schools, they need to stay in the "in and here"; schools provide safety and parents - which are very bad parents if they give smartphone to youngsters under 14 - can just call their school for any need.

 

[urielejh]

The article is a bit superficial.

Specifically the Council said there wasn't enough evidence of harm, and that the remedy is unbalanced, going way too far for that what evidence of harm there is. I.e. one can't remove big fundamental freedoms for small things.

So the law went into immediate rework, either to better present the evidence of harm, or to limit its scope, or both.

Small harm? Freedom of what? Omgosh.

 

[urielejh]

NY state banned smartphones from the classrooms in September 2025.

#1 How many fight videos did you see recorded inside NYC schools last year?
#2 How many illegal, sexually explicit videos did you see recorded inside NYC schools last year?
#3 How many teachers did you see being recorded without their permission and put on IG or Snapchat last year?

Cyberbullying declined by the way.

The answer is NO - kids under 18 should not have smartphones in school at all.

When you're a teacher held accountable about test scores, I guarantee you'll feel the same way.

When you're a lawyer like my younger sibling who has to defend minors from charges pending for sexually explicit or criminal videos that they themselves made, recorded and disseminated then you'll understand.

I applaud the governments of the world who finally took action and denied smartphones from schools and simultaneously denied minors from social media. It hurts Smuckerberg and Musky smell's pockets. I don't care.

And no there's nothing "communist" or "fascist" about it - that just shows me you don't know the definition of words.

This.

 

[urielejh]

Small victory for freedom… but alas, only temporary…

Just remember, when you ban kids from something, they’re the ones who will harbor resentment when they grow up - and they grow up fast.

Oh my...

 

[Beerfloat]

Small victory for freedom… but alas, only temporary…

Just remember, when you ban kids from something, they’re the ones who will harbor resentment when they grow up - and they grow up fast.

Have you given that statement any more time to sit in your head since posting? Once you arrive at its fully formed conclusion you yourself might think it patently absurd.

 

[Anton Longshot]

It's more nuanced than that.
First of all it's about social media, not cell phones. Social media can be accessed from any sort of device.
Is it communism to ban cigarettes and alcohol for kids? I don't think so, and social media is probably even more harmful.

My kids are 16+ already and seamlessly passed through all that, but we have many friends with younger kids and it's not at all that simple. You can't just hand them a plain Nokia with 1 square inch screen, they'll be ridiculed, which is equally bad. I mean it's not something the majority of parents can handle on their own, establishing some restrictions to protect kids is necessary.

Peer pressure's a monster and it seems best to give in in this case lest the kids feel like outcasts which can be a scarring experience.
At some point they might choose to become their own man but that particular decision should be left to the kids I think.
From what I've seen when I was a kid walking that particular path is done by very few.
Rewarding choice though but those who choose to remain part of the majority will never know so one might wonder what the freaking difference is.
Also, it's never too lat: some might embrace their individuality later in life.

 

[Biostud]

Small victory for freedom… but alas, only temporary…

Just remember, when you ban kids from something, they’re the ones who will harbor resentment when they grow up - and they grow up fast.

Do you have kids?

I'm not letting my kids (age 6-9) on anything driven by an algorithm when they have screen time.

It's the parents role to set age appropriate limits for their children both on digital devices and IRL.

Children will ultimately feel more safe when they know their parents let them grow up in a safe environment. And I'm not going to let big tech steal their childhood.

 

[LordVile95]

How much have these courts been lobbied? There’s a measurable impact on mental health with using social media as an adult and it’s even worse in children, they’ll never outright ban it and seek to have a lack of appetite to regulate it to a meaningful extent but an age limit would be the next best thing.

 

[LordVile95]

Do you have kids?

I'm not letting my kids (age 6-9) on anything driven by an algorithm when they have screen time.

It's the parents role to set age appropriate limits for their children both on digital devices and IRL.

Children will ultimately feel more safe when they know their parents let them grow up in a safe environment. And I'm not going to let big tech steal their childhood.

Or will they resent you because “all my friends have it”. Just look at vaccine uptake drop for proof that some parents arguably shouldn’t have kids.

 

[MonicaPython2]

I believe, children are generally easly get dependent on social media, because they are not able to control themselves yet. And that is a danger for them independently if social media use is limited or not.

Do you have kids?

I'm not letting my kids (age 6-9) on anything driven by an algorithm when they have screen time.

It's the parents role to set age appropriate limits for their children both on digital devices and IRL.

Children will ultimately feel more safe when they know their parents let them grow up in a safe environment. And I'm not going to let big tech steal their childhood.

 

[PaladinNH]

I believe, children are generally easly get dependent on social media, because they are not able to control themselves yet. And that is a danger for them independently if social media use is limited or not.

I am 45 and unable to control myself. I deactivate Facebook regularly and manage to stay off for 2-3 months at a time. But I always end up back for some practical reason like Marketplace, and ultimately end up viewing and becoming influenced by everything the algorithm throws at me.

 

[Squid Surprise]

Have you given that statement any more time to sit in your head since posting? Once you arrive at its fully formed conclusion you yourself might think it patently absurd.

I have - still stand by it.

To enforce any age restrictions, EVERYONE must now provide id when making an account… you don’t see the problem there?