Should Teens Be on Social Media? The science behind Austria’s and the EU’s proposed age limits.
The new school year has started, and in the near future the lives of teenagers could look strikingly different if the government and the European Union introduce new age caps on endless social media scrolling.
Austria wants to introduce a minimum age of 14 for social media platforms, like TikTok, YouTube, Snapchat and Instagram. Elsewhere in Europe, some policymakers are pushing for a limit of 16. The European Commission has unveiled its own proposal this month, the Kids Act. The measure would prohibit children under 13 from using social media platforms, while only those aged 15 and over would be permitted to create their own accounts.
Supporters seek stronger protection for children from harmful algorithms; critics argue it could lead to privacy risks and isolation, particularly among vulnerable youths.
But beyond the political debate lies a fundamental question: what does scientific evidence tell us about young people, smartphones, and social media?
WHY DO MANY EXPERTS RECOMMEND DELAYING SOCIAL MEDIA USE UNTIL AGE 14 OR OLDER?
Many experts point to the interaction between engagement-driven algorithms and young people’s developing brains as a key concern.
“Children are not the problem,” says Dr Soheil Human, human rights scholar at IT:U, who is also a cognitive scientist, “the problem is that many major platforms are designed around attention extraction, profiling, addictive interaction patterns, and weak accountability”.
IT:U professor of Geosocial Artificial Intelligence, Bernd Resch agrees, saying social media companies increasingly use insights from behavioral science to keep people glued to their screens.
“Apps are specifically designed to make children and adolescents addicted,” he says, “it is like being offered chocolate. The goal of social media is to stimulate this release of dopamine.”
Teenagers are also particularly sensitive to social reward mechanisms, such as ‘likes’ and other forms of online feedback.
Teens are particularly sensitive to social feedback, such as ‘likes’. (Symbolic image. Stock photo, AI edited via Freepik)
Children’s brains, particularly areas linked to judgment, self-regulation, and impulse control, develop well into the 20s. Research suggests that social media can affect attention and has been associated with issues such as disrupted sleep, emotional regulation difficulties, and poorer mental health outcomes in some young people.
Professor Resch says increases in mental health issues have been most pronounced among younger adolescents, particularly girls.
“The younger the group, the worse it gets,” he says, “the figures for depression, anxiety and self-harm are particularly extreme among 10- to 14-year-old, especially girls.”
Experts further point to risks including cyberbullying, online grooming, and exposure to extremist content.
WHAT AGE LIMIT DO EXPERTS SUPPORT?
While scientists continue to debate the scale of social media effects, many agree that adolescence is a particularly sensitive period of development. Experts also differ on the best way to protect young people online, with some favoring age restrictions and others stressing platform accountability. Deciding where to set an age limit is far from straightforward, helping explain the differences across Europe.
Professor Resch says age restrictions should go beyond the government’s proposal.
“The recommendation should be no smartphones before the age of 14 and no social media before the age of 16,” he says, arguing that younger teenagers may not yet have the maturity to manage social media’s influences.
He stresses that young people must have access to better alternatives in the real world when going smartphone-free, “you could read a book, go running, take a walk with friends, or do push-ups. It should be something that can also be developed into a lasting habit.”
Kids playing in nature: Prof. Bernd Resch says offering children real world experiences are necessary when keeping them off screens. (Symbolic image. Stock photo, AI-edited via Freepik)
Dr Human prefers restrictions for younger teens but only as a temporary measure until platforms adopt safer designs.
“Stronger restriction under 13 or 14; limited, privacy-protective, non-addictive, non-profiling access for 14–16; and broader access after 16,“ Dr Human says.
But he stresses that “protection must not become isolation”. Older children, “still need digital spaces where they can connect, learn, play, express themselves, organize, and seek support”. That, he says, is particularly important for vulnerable youths from the LGBTQIA+ communities and immigrant backgrounds.
He argues authorities should review an age cap regularly considering evidence, young people’s experiences, and whether safer alternatives exist.
HOW CAN YOUNG PEOPLE BE PROTECTED WITHOUT COMPROMISING THEIR PRIVACY?
Yet even if policymakers agree on age limits, enforcing them raises difficult questions about privacy.
As Professor of security at IT:U, Johanna Ullrich, says age verification would require a robust and sound protocol, but she worries about potential security implications.
She says online age checks would “leave more traces than in the offline world, such as showing a passport or ID when buying alcohol at a supermarket for example”.
Professor Ullrich also warns that age verification systems may not be fully effective, as young users could bypass them by using VPNs “as a tool to escape to other jurisdictions”.
In some cases, young people could move to unregulated areas, such as the dark web.
Privacy and data security are an important part of the discussion. (Symbolic image. Stock photo, AI-edited via Freepik)
At the same time, supporters of age verification say technology can balance safety and privacy.
As one of the masterminds behind the Advanced Data Protection Control system, or ADPC, Dr Human argues that such age-verification systems would collect the minimum amount of information necessary.
“Data protection must be part of the architecture. Ideally, the platform should not learn the child’s identity, document, address, face, or browsing history.”
He adds that such information should remain under the user’s control rather than platforms or third parties, and technologies such as ADPC could help communicate these privacy choices automatically while limiting the collection of such data.
The European Commission says its age-verification approach will let users prove they are over a certain age without sharing unnecessary personal information. The Austrian government is also looking into similar models, using ID Austria.
Parents, Dr Human says, should ask one simple question: “does this system protect my child, or does it create a new database about my child?”
“The privacy risks can become permanent if we build the wrong infrastructure. That is why temporary restrictions must not create permanent surveillance systems.”
Both experts stress that in the end platforms should be accountable for their products, with Professor Ullrich, asking “why do we regulate our children, and not the big platforms to make their algorithms less addictive”?
It remains to be seen to what extent the recent settlement between Meta and certain U.S. states will lead to an improvement in the platform design.
Experts say algorithms should be made less addictive. (Symbolic image. Stock photo, AI-edited via Freepik)
WOULD AUSTRIA NEED TO FOLLOW THE EU’S LEAD?
Austria’s government has said it plans to introduce its national legislation banning under-14s from addictive social media accounts, with the law expected to come into effect in early 2027.
But what if Austria sets a different age limit from the EU?
“We expect it will be a EU regulation,” Dr Human says, and that means “Austria would need to follow it, because it would be binding”.
“So, legally, the answer is: Austria can move first, but not in a way that contradicts later binding EU law.“
Any EU-wide rule would still need to go through an intense debate and vote before becoming law.
The outcome could shape not only when young people gain access to social media, but also what kind of online and offline spaces await them when they do.