Von der Leyen stands before the endless scroll of children under 15
Ursula von der Leyen, President of the European Commission, announced ambitious regulatory measures during her speech on the state of the Union on September 16, aimed at protecting minors from the risks posed by digital services. These include a proposed 'Kids Act,' which would prohibit access to social media before age 13, allow limited parental-controlled accounts between ages 13–15, and enable self-registration after age 15. The plan targets platforms like Instagram, TikTok, and YouTube, while excluding educational or publicly managed services. Von der Leyen emphasized concerns over mental health issues linked to excessive screen time, citing cases such as the suicide of a 14-year-old Belgian girl due to cyberbullying. The proposal expands beyond existing regulations, such as Australia’s ban on social media for under-16s and France’s rejected attempt to restrict access for those under 15.
European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen has announced sweeping measures aimed at restricting children's access to digital platforms, including social media, during her address on the state of the Union on September 16. She proposed banning access to social networks for children under 13 years old, allowing limited access between ages 13 and 15 with parental control, and permitting self-registration after age 15. These proposals are part of a broader regulatory framework known as the Kids Act, designed to impose stricter controls on digital services targeting minors. Von der Leyen emphasized the need for regulation due to concerns over the impact of excessive screen time on young users, citing issues such as insomnia, anxiety, and self-harm. She highlighted the growing influence of technology companies, stating that their power appears overwhelming but is not uncontrollable. Her remarks followed emotional references to the suicide of a 14-year-old Belgian girl who was cyberbullied, underscoring the urgency of addressing these issues. The proposed regulations go beyond existing laws, such as Australia’s ban on social media for those under 16, which has had limited effectiveness, and France’s attempt to prohibit access for those under 15, which was rejected by the Constitutional Council. The European Commission aims to regulate a wider range of digital services deemed high-risk for minors, including app stores, AI chatbots, video-sharing platforms, and certain online games. Under the Kids Act, digital service providers would be required to implement safety-by-design principles, effectively banning addictive features such as infinite scrolling, personalized recommendations, intrusive notifications, rewards for prolonged engagement, and default activation of microphones and location tracking. Von der Leyen stated that companies must prove these services are safe for young users in the EU. Additionally, generative AI systems should avoid creating simulated interpersonal relationships that could lead to emotional dependence, and AI chatbots integrated into other services should be disabled by default. The legislation targets major platforms such as Instagram, App Stores, ChatGPT, TikTok, YouTube, and Roblox, excluding educational or public authority-run services. Psychologist Irene López expressed skepticism about the effectiveness of outright bans without explanation, warning that such measures might fail to achieve their intended goals.
Go to the primary sources (4)
The official sources this coverage is built on. Read them directly to bypass framing.
Ursula von der Leyen, President of the European Commission, announced ambitious regulatory measures during her speech on the state of the Union on September 16, aimed at protecting minors from the risks posed by digital services. These include a proposed 'Kids Act,' which would prohibit access to social media before age 13, allow limited parental-controlled accounts between ages 13–15, and enable self-registration after age 15. The plan targets platforms like Instagram, TikTok, and YouTube, while excluding educational or publicly managed services. Von der Leyen emphasized concerns over mental health issues linked to excessive screen time, citing cases such as the suicide of a 14-year-old Belgian girl due to cyberbullying. The proposal expands beyond existing regulations, such as Australia’s ban on social media for under-16s and France’s rejected attempt to restrict access for those under 15.
Bias read (Progressive): The article emphasizes the negative impacts of social media on children, including mental health issues and suicide, and frames the regulation as a protective measure. It highlights the role of digital platforms in exacerbating these problems and presents the proposed legislation as a necessary step
Why factuality (75): The article references Ursula von der Leyen’s speech on the state of the Union and mentions her proposals regarding minors and digital regulation. However, it does not directly reference the primary source document about Pénélope’s suicide or the legal actions against TikTok. It also mentions Macron
Why objectivity (60): The article uses emotionally charged language such as ‘gran apropiación de nuestros hijos’ and ‘confiscado su atención’ which could be seen as biased toward a particular viewpoint. While it presents both sides by mentioning different regulatory approaches, the tone leans toward emphasizing the dange
El ConfidencialIndependent🔒CenterFactual: no official source document/info detectedObjective 90
The article discusses Irene López, a psychologist, who comments on the proposal to ban minors under 13 years old from using social networks. She argues that such a prohibition, if implemented without explanation or context, has a high chance of failing. Her perspective highlights concerns about the effectiveness of top-down restrictions without proper reasoning or support for users. The discussion likely centers around the broader debate over internet regulation, youth protection, and digital literacy.
Bias read (Center): The article presents a psychological expert's opinion on a proposed policy without overtly favoring any side. It does not include explicit ideological language or one-sided sourcing, suggesting a balanced approach to the issue.
Why factuality: no official source document/info detected
Why objectivity (90): The article remains largely neutral in tone, presenting the expert opinion without overt bias or emotional language. It frames the issue as a discussion point rather than taking a definitive stance, maintaining balance.
How each side covered it
The same event, grouped by the political lean of the outlets covering it.
progressive
center
conservative
★
How each side covered it
Support independent, bias-aware news and unlock the social pulse, community voting, and every other Supporter feature.
Spain
