As the European Union moves toward widespread bans and age verification on social media, the question is not whether these practices pose problems, but whether the available evidence justifies such a uniform and restrictive response. At this stage, this is not the case.
The desire to ban minors from social media, now explicitly discussed in Brussels, gives the debate on the dangers of these platforms a new level of seriousness. When such a restrictive measure is being considered, the minimum requirement is to examine the facts rigorously and to clearly distinguish between political concerné, moral urgency, and scientific evidence. However, when it comes to the intrinsic danger of social media for young people, the available data is much weaker than European institutional discourse suggests.
« Methodological problems »
Both the European Commission and the European Parliament repeatedly rely on the same figures and studies to support the idea of a systemic danger. At the top of this corpus is the 2019 study by the European Parliament’s Research Services (EPRS). It is frequently cited in institutional communications, including very recent ones, to suggest a direct link between social media, mental health deterioration, and risky behavior. The problem is that this document is neither a clinical study nor causal research. It is a review of heterogeneous literature, largely based on correlations, self-reported data, and work that was already controversial at the time of its publication. In no way does this report establish that social media, as such, causes psychological disorders. It even states that « there are methodological problems with the relevant research conducted to date. »
Non-addictive addiction
The weakness of this foundation is compounded by the recurrent citation, particularly in the EPRS analysis and by other institutions, of studies such as the one published in 2016 by Ella Donnelly and Daria Kuss on the role of social media in depression, to justify blanket bans. Here again, the extrapolation is misleading. This is an exploratory, non-causal clinical review that does not focus on representative adolescent populations or legal recommendations. Its use in the political debate is based on a biased interpretation that is more normative than scientific. Added to this is the troubling fact that Daria Kuss is one of the co-authors of the 2019 EPRS study. Finally, the Kuss study’s central reliance on the concept of « social media addiction » illustrates a problematic bias: unlike substance addictions, no specific and stable neurobiological signature—particularly in terms of dopaminergic circuits—has been established in the case of social media. As such, neither the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders nor the World Health Organization recognizes social media addiction as a clinical diagnosis, clearly distinguishing between problematic use and medical dependence.
Progress and more nuanced findings
Since Kuss’s study, research has progressed, but not in a way that supports a ban on social media. Large population studies and several recent meta-analyses converge on a more nuanced finding: the observed effects of social media use are weak, heterogeneous, and largely dependent on individual, family, and social contexts. The most rigorous researchers agree on one key point: there is no robust evidence that social media is inherently and generally dangerous for all adolescents. Risks do exist, but they concern vulnerable subgroups and cannot be extrapolated to an entire age group. A recent British study of more than 25,000 adolescents confirms that the association between social media use and mental health is weak, non-causal, and largely mediated by social factors. To our knowledge, this study has never been referenced by European institutions, including in their recent communications on the subject.
Recent studies cited
Some more recent studies continue to be cited in defense of a hard line on social media. The problem is that they highlight associations between problematic use and psychological distress, but without establishing causality between the two. The persistent use of the notion of « addiction, » defined broadly and non-clinically on the basis of self-reported questionnaires, transforms signs of vulnerability into evidence of structural harm.The study by Yunyu Xiao et al. What’s more, it focuses on a vulnerable subgroup based on a broad definition of addiction.
Agency
The problem is that, based on this body of research, which is still under development—and many of whose studies are commissioned and then interpreted in a biased manner—certain national and European institutions are now promoting general, uniform bans, without parental consent and without taking into account the progressive agency of children. This response is less about prevention than a maximalist precautionary approach, which is politically appealing because it is simple, visible, and inexpensive in the short term. Above all, it avoids more complex and demanding policies such as psychological support, digital education, family support, or targeted measures to combat bullying.
Legal leap
The objections to this criticism are well known: certain uses would become problematic, and public action should not wait for perfect scientific consensus. These arguments do not justify such a radical legal leap as a blanket ban. Recognizing the risks for some young people does not mean depriving all others of social, cultural, and relational uses that have become central to their lives. In public health as in law, proportionality remains a cardinal principle. The paradox here is obvious: in the name of protecting children, we tend to reduce them to objects of regulation, marginalizing the role of parents and transforming the law into an instrument of moral reassurance. But the law is not a therapeutic tool. It cannot compensate for the inadequacy of care, education, or prevention policies.