Limit the Use of Social Media.

Problem

• Social media facilitates the rapid spread of false information, which can influence public opinion and elections.
• User data is often collected without sufficient consent and misused for commercial purposes.
• The design of social media platforms promotes addictive behavior that causes users to spend unhealthy amounts of time online.
• Social media exacerbates social inequality and harms equal opportunities, as families with lower educational backgrounds can provide less or no education and control over access.
• Access to social media in schools reduces educational success, especially for weaker students.

Solution

• Access to social media is prohibited for youths under 16 years old and violations by operators are penalized with heavy fines.
• The responsibility for ensuring age-appropriate access lies with the providers.
• Comparable to the gambling law, providers are obliged to prevent addiction related to social media, to take preventive measures (e.g., a popup "You have already spent more than 30 minutes on our social media today"), etc.
• Smartphones are banned in schools until the age of 16. Also during breaks. In day schools, also over lunchtime.
• Schools should better integrate the handling of social media into their teaching.

Benefit

• Studies show that less time on social media among adolescents is associated with lower rates of depression and anxiety.
• Research suggests that adolescents without nighttime access to social media experience better and longer sleep.
• Some studies indicate that less distraction from social media can lead to better academic performance.
• What do children gain? – Being a child. Self-esteem. Focus. Protection. Without constant distraction, they can refocus on real life, friendships, and their own strengths.
• No more peer pressure when everyone is equally excluded. This reduces social pressure, strengthens self-confidence, and creates space for genuine encounters.

Public support

Total votes: 123

Breakdown: FullyOnBoard: 80, SoundsGood: 18, NoChance: 9, NeedForDiscussion: 9, Concerns: 5, NothingAgainstIt: 2

Discussion

• Ralf Metz (2026-04-08): Here too, the fundamental question for me is: Is a person a victim who must be protected from themselves, or do they have the possibility to take responsibility for themselves and their decisions? While I see the substantive effects of social media, including its negative consequences, I view the path of ever more interventions as a mistake. Because from that perspective you would also end up with: - banning driving - banning unhealthy foods - prescribing exercise - banning fast food The list can be expanded almost arbitrarily. On the other hand, I find this discussion far more important: How can we make it so that people are empowered in their self‑ and personal responsibility, so that they can (again?) make much freer, better decisions for themselves?
• ↳ Ralf Metz (2026-04-10): I deliberately distinguish two levels here, even though the terms are often mixed in everyday life. One level is what you describe: personal responsibility within a framework. The clearer the framework, the better it can succeed. That’s true. The other level I call self-responsibility. That’s an inner decision. The decision to make a topic my own, regardless of whether the surroundings are perfect or not. Between stimulus and reaction there is always a space. And in that space I decide. And now comes the point that really concerns me about your argument: The more one always defines the framework more clearly and protects it more, the more this inner level is weakened. I understand that the intention behind it is not malicious, but aimed at good goals. What actually happens in practice: When the framework governs everything, I no longer have to make an inner decision. The choice is taken away from me. And what is not practiced withers.
• ↳ Ralf Metz (2026-04-10): I see it the same way in organizations: Those who focus only on the framework trigger something that concerns me at least as much as the algorithm: it systematically shifts responsibility outward. The system is to blame. The company must protect. I am a victim until the environment improves. And protection as the main strategy ultimately weakens the inner capacity we need for a strong and vibrant society—and therefore also for democracy. That’s why I am convinced that both are necessary: A focus on the framework, because it enables personal responsibility. And a focus on inner attitude, because self‑responsibility cannot be delegated. We cannot take that away from people.
• ↳ Ralf Metz (2026-04-10): Where I suspect we are actually closer in substance than the discussion suggests. We just apply the lever differently. Would you be interested in continuing this personally? I think it would make for a good hour. Perhaps you already have a format in mind for a plural context—podcast, video, etc. Two positions, openly discussed. That could be interesting for more than just the two of us. If so, feel free to get in touch. Kind regards, Ralf