|
IN BRIEF
|
A global movement is pushing governments to reassess access to minors to social networks, of theAustralia At VietnamEach parent adopts different solutions to keep children away from inappropriate content. Among the approaches, some suggest read-only accounts supervised by a parent and time limits on games, while others opt for… prohibitions total or varying age thresholds. The application procedures, exemptions (messaging, games) and the question of the age verification raise technical and other issues privacy protection which raise as many questions as political ambitions.
In just a few years, many states have initiated or adopted measures aimed at limiting access to minors to social networksResponses range from outright bans to more nuanced measures — such as the Vietnamese project to mute account — and the implementation methods differ significantly from country to country. This article describes the proposals under consideration, the stated motivations, the technical and legal obstacles, as well as the initial sanctions and pilot projects that serve as tests for the future.
The Vietnamese initiative: a silent social account and parental supervision
Vietnam is proposing an original approach: maintaining access to the service for young people without allowing them to interact. Users under 16 would retain a profile but would be limited to a certain level of access. read-onlyunable to post, comment, or react. The stated objective is to offer an age-appropriate environment, supervised by a parent registered as the account manager.
This system stipulates that the parent monitors content consulted and time spent online, while the platforms must deploy technical tools to detect young users and adapt flows at their age. A specific component for video games limits, according to the project, playing time to one hour per day per title for those under 16.
The philosophy behind this text, as explained by Deputy Minister Phan Tam, is not to prohibit on principle but to guarantee an “age-appropriate” framework. The draft is not yet finalized and could be modified before its implementation.
A global movement with contrasting characteristics
Vietnam is joining an international movement launched, according to observers, by theAustralia by the end of 2025, which opted for a total ban on social media for those under 16. Since then, around fifteen countries have been preparing or implementing restrictions of a very diverse nature. A recent overview lists these initiatives and their diversity (sources: TF1 Info, Montreal Journal).
Age thresholds vary: some countries set the bar at 14 years old, others to fifteen Or 16 years oldThe measures range from a total ban to more targeted approaches—exclusion of encrypted messaging in some texts, inclusion of gaming platforms in others. summary from La Tribune This clearly illustrates the international ambiguity surrounding ages and boundaries.
Concrete examples: sanctions, timetables and scope
Several examples illustrate the diversity of approaches: in AustraliaThe ban for those under 16 is accompanied by strict sanctions that can include very high fines for recalcitrant platforms (figures cited in the press). FranceA law passed on July 21st provides for a ban for those under 15, with possible implementation as early as September, while the United Kingdom announced a ban for those under 16, including specific restrictions on the chatbots of a romantic nature.
Other countries — Denmark, Greece, Spain, Turkey, Indonesia, Malaysia, Poland, Slovenia, Austria, Canada, Germany — have projects at various stages. Some expressly exclude messaging apps like WhatsApp or Signal, while others extend the rules to gaming platforms (theIndonesia for example targeted games like Roblox).
For an up-to-date overview of the countries concerned and the areas covered, see in particular the TF1 report and the analyses in the Journal de Montréal: TF1 Info, Montreal Journal.
Stated motivations: protection of young people and combating multiple risks
The reasons behind these initiatives are recurring: the fight against cyberbullying, reduction of theaddiction screen time, prevention of sleep disorders, reduction ofanxiety and protection against online predators. These risks serve as a central argument for governments eager to intervene quickly.
However, implementation raises many questions: age verification, sometimes presented as necessary, is criticized for its potential intrusiveness and its implications for private lifeOrganizations like Amnesty Tech expressed doubts about the effectiveness of strict bans and the risks of circumvention, believing that these measures can be disconnected from actual practices young people (see Amnesty’s campaign on the subject): Amnesty).
British Prime Minister Keir Starmer himself acknowledged the difficulties of implementing such a ban, while stating his belief in its feasibility by spring 2027, illustrating the tension between political ambition and technical feasibility.
Technical challenges: age verification, parental control, and detection
Effective implementation relies on tools that are not yet fully developed. Platforms are asked to develop systems for age verification, of content filtering and adjusting algorithms according to age, but these techniques raise problems of accuracy, circumvention and protection of personal data.
Proposals for phased access or enhanced regulation have been discussed in the European Union and elsewhere; the media have summarized these approaches and the technical alternatives proposed by experts (see, among others, the analyses published by West France).
The challenge lies in designing tools that are effective, privacy-respecting, and difficult to circumvent, while ensuring a real role for parents and to the tutors in supervision.
The Asian landscape: national contexts and regional specificities
In Southeast Asia, several states are observing and adapting their responses to diverse political and social realities. Vietnam, already mentioned, is part of a region where other issues—economic, security, and media-related—influence public decisions. Analyses published on the region offer an overview of the political transformations surrounding these reforms and their local impacts (Southeast Asia – regional context).
Regional articles also highlight that national priorities — such as combating certain types of trafficking or political tensions — can influence how digital rules are applied (see, for example, investigations on Cambodia and the region: Southeast Asia – France-Cambodia trade, Southeast Asia – traffic).
Criticisms, risks of circumvention, and lessons learned
Several observers point to practical limitations: young people can use fake birth dates, VPNs, or shared accounts to circumvent restrictions. Experts also remind us that…media education and prevention measures remain essential and are not replaced by a simple ban.
Critical voices, including those of NGOs specializing in digital rights, believe that children’s safety must be combined with guarantees of data protection and transparency regarding verification tools. Current debates show that the political intention is often shared, but that the technical and legal means diverge.
The Australian experience, pioneering in its strictness, will be observed as a case study: its application and its real effects on the habits of young people will serve as a reference for other countries considering similar measures.
Sources and further reading
To delve deeper into the subject and consult reviews and analyses, see in particular the following dossiers and articles: TF1 Info for an overview of the countries concerned (TF1 Info), the Journal de Montréal on the global emergence of initiatives (Montreal Journal), La Tribune for an overview of ages and regulatory ambiguities (The Tribune) and Amnesty International for criticisms regarding effectiveness and the protection of rights (Amnesty).
For the Asian and regional context, several articles from Southeast Asia provide insights into the political and social issues accompanying these reforms in the region (Southeast Asia – France-Cambodia, Southeast Asia – political changes, Southeast Asia – political news, Southeast Asia – press freedom).
Further articles on the legal and technical implications can also be found in the specialist and general press, including Ouest-France for proposals for progressive access and European debates (West France).
Q: What measures are currently being proposed to regulate minors’ access to social networks? A: Several options are emerging: total bans For those under certain age groups, accounts in read only For teenagers, strengthened parental controls and technical obligations for platforms to identify and offer a adapted content. Q: What exactly does the Vietnamese project mentioned in the article entail? A: The system proposed in Vietnam maintains the under-16 count, but makes it mute No posting, commenting, or reactions are allowed. The child has supervised reading access. responsible parent registered user, who must track screen time and content viewed. A separate section imposes a one-hour limit per day and per game for those under 16. Q: How is the Vietnamese solution different from a total ban? A: Rather than prohibiting access, it aims to adapt the digital environment age-appropriate features include: controlled reading, parental supervision and content filtering, instead of simply blocking access to platforms. Q: Which countries have already adopted or are considering similar restrictions? A: Australia pioneered the late 2025 with a prohibition for those under 16. Other countries — including the France, THE United Kingdom, THE Denmark, there Greece, L’Spain, there Türkiye, L’Indonesia, there Malaysia, there Poland, there Slovenia, L’Austria, THE Canada and theGermany — work on texts with thresholds generally varying between 14 and 16 years old. Q: Are messaging apps like WhatsApp or Signal affected? A: Approaches differ: some countries explicitly exclude messaging apps of the scope, while others extend the rules to gaming platforms and to interactive online environments. Q: Why are these laws multiplying? A: The reasons given are recurring: the fight against the cyberbullying, prevention ofaddictionsleep protection, reduction ofanxiety and protection against exposure to malicious individuals. Q: What are the main points of criticism against these bans? A: Organizations like Amnesty Tech believe that these measures risk being ineffective and disconnected from the actual practices of young people. The age verification also raises concerns about privacy and data security. Q: How do governments plan to verify users’ ages? A: The texts provide for various technical solutions: identification by identity documents, third-party verification systems, or algorithms to detect accounts belonging to minors. But these methods are considered controversial and difficult to deploy without risks to privacy. What sanctions are planned for platforms that do not comply with the rules? A: Sanctions vary from country to country: the Australian example includes very heavy fines potentially amounting to several tens of millions of euros, while other jurisdictions prefer gradual compliance mechanisms. Q: Can these laws really be implemented effectively? A: Many experts remain skeptical. British Prime Minister He himself acknowledged the complexity of implementing a ban, and many projects waver between political ambition and technical feasibilityThe Australian experience will serve as a first practical indicator. Q: What role will parents play in these new systems? A: The texts tend to reinforce the parental responsibility : registration of the parent as manager of the minor’s account, obligation to control screen time and content, and possibility of activating restriction settings offered by the platforms. Q: And are video games also affected? A: Yes: some projects include online games. Vietnam, for example, offers a limit of one hour per day and per title for those under 16, and other countries are considering similar regulations targeting gaming environments. Q: Is there an international consensus on these measures? A: Politically, a broad consensus is emerging regarding the need to protect minors, but the methods remain highly heterogeneous. Governments share the same concerns, but diverge on the minimum age, the scope of prohibitions, and the enforcement tools.Frequently Asked Questions — Social media and minors: the global momentum