Europe is at an inflection point in how it approaches children\u2019s experiences in digital environments. The increasing political momentum to strengthen protections against online risks is both justified and overdue. For too long, technology companies have exercised significant influence over children\u2019s lives without adequate accountability. There is now broad recognition that the status quo must change, making the case for strong, enforceable regulation. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
But the real challenge is not simply to act. It is to act well.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
From my perspective as a child rights and digital policy expert, the risk at this pivotal moment is that urgency drives us toward politically appealing solutions, yet ultimately insufficient or even counterproductive. Regulation should not be limited to shielding children from harm. It should also enable them to fully and safely enjoy their rights online. The vision must go beyond protection: we should aim to create digital environments where children can learn, participate, express themselves, and truly thrive.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
A striking feature of current debates is the growing focus on restricting access, particularly through minimum age requirements for social media. According to an OECD study \u2018Social media age restrictions for children: Why they are rising and what comes next\u2019, as of 10 April 2026, data reveal clear global convergence around a digital majority. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
These proposals resonate because they appear straightforward: limit access, reduce harm. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
Yet reality is more complex than that. Blanket bans risk excluding children from spaces that are increasingly central to education, social connection, and civic engagement. They may push younger users toward less regulated platforms or encourage widespread workarounds, ultimately undermining both protection and trust. In practice, such measures can create the illusion of decisive action while leaving the root causes of harm untouched.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
This does not mean that age-related measures have no role. It means they must be carefully crafted. Where introduced, they should be proportionate (balancing risk mitigation with children\u2019s broader rights), targeted at harmful features rather than entire platforms, embedded in wider educational strategies, and supported by privacy-preserving age verification mechanisms. When linked to specific risks, these measures can also incentivise companies to improve the safety of their design, placing responsibility where it belongs, rather than letting them off the hook.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
As the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights recently observed: <\/p>\n\n\n\n From a children\u2019s rights perspective, the answer to this question is clear. General Comment No. 25 affirms that responsibility for upholding children\u2019s rights in the digital environment lies with states and technology companies. It is not up to the children themselves.<\/p>\n\n\n\n My previous experience as an advocate in the mental health field, where I examined the impact of digital environments on wellbeing, has only reinforced this point. Too often, we place the burden on people to be \u201cresilient\u201d: to manage risks, self-regulate, and recover from harm. But resilience cannot mean asking people to endure unsafe environments. It cannot become a substitute for accountability. A critical approach to resilience requires us to shift the focus upstream: not asking individuals, especially children, to adapt to harmful systems but rather acting on those very systems to address the root causes of harm and prevent them.<\/p>\n\n\n\n My experience in mental health has also taught me that to have thriving individuals, we need to invest in the communities around them. I heard first-hand testimonies from children struggling with their mental health because of online exposure to \u201crabbit holes\u201d of harmful content. These experiences highlighted how ill-equipped many adults are to support children. Strengthening the capacity of caregivers, educators, and even mental health professionals is therefore essential.<\/p>\n\n\n\n At the same time, children\u2019s experiences online cannot be separated from their lives offline. When, for instance, young people turn to artificial intelligence (AI) for emotional support or companionship, it often signals unmet needs elsewhere. Governments and societies must invest in meaningful offline opportunities such as spaces for connection, creativity, and play, and ensure that children\u2019s needs, including mental health needs, are adequately addressed.<\/p>\n\n\n\n If we are serious about meeting children\u2019s real needs, we must start by listening to them.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Children are not merely passive users of digital services, they are active participants with valuable insights into the risks they face and the opportunities they seek. Their perspectives must not only be heard but meaningfully reflected in policy and design decisions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n <\/p>\n\n\n\n In the case of social media, we must admit that regulatory action came too late: only after it became evident that technology companies were failing to meet their responsibilities. To avoid repeating this mistake, it is essential to adopt a proactive approach and establish safeguards for emerging technologies at an early stage. Emerging technologies can pose new and complex risks for children. Young people\u2019s use of generative AI is already significantly higher than that of the general population, as shown by Eurostat 2025 data.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cSimply limiting access to platforms that remain unsafe cannot stand as the endpoint in effectively protecting children.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\nWhose responsibility is it to uphold children\u2019s rights in the digital environment? <\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n
A moment that demands ambition and leadership <\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n