The Education Ministers' Conference agreed on a common line this week: When dealing with social media, children and adolescents should not be protected by blanket bans, but by Media literacy.
Sensitize, strengthen, protect, that is the triad agreed upon by the ministers of the countries. I think that's right. And at the same time I find it slightly amusing that we as a society obviously have to follow the same path again and again before we arrive at the same realization.
We know this from somewhere.
Anyone who, like me, spent his childhood and adolescence in the 90s to the 2000s, has experienced this debate before. Only with other protagonists.
At that time it was the Killer games. Doom, Quake, Counterstrike. Did you know? Anyone who grew up with it remembers the headlines. ‘Power aggressively.’ ‘Raculate the youth.’ ‘Must be banned.’ There were hearings in the Bundestag, expert opinions, talk show rounds with excited parents and nodding educators. A whole generation of teenagers played first-person shooters and, according to experts, should be well on their way to brutalization.
Before that it was the Video cassettes. And the Walkman (Children no longer listen to music with others!) And this television In general, that makes the youth passive and lazy. And of course the comics in the 1950s, who were blamed for juvenile delinquency until a psychiatrist named Fredric Wertham triggered a verital panic with his book ‘Seduction of the Innocent’.
Every new medium that attracts young people reliably triggers the same reaction: First panic, then ban calls, then usually after a few years the realization that you need media literacy and no bans.
We're back in the third act.
What's different this time and what's not
Social media is not a doom level. The mechanisms by which platforms generate and bind attention are more sophisticated than anything that existed before. Algorithmic feeds, notifications, likes as a social credit system – this cannot be downplayed, especially for children whose identity and self-image are still forming.
But a blanket ban doesn't solve that. It shifts the problem, it makes it invisible, it gives parents and politicians the reassuring feeling of having done something while the tech-savvy kids do the same over VPN, only without any accompaniment. Discount code for NordVPN or Surfshark In addition to Holy and the energy drink from F-Promi XY, it is also felt to be part of all influencers in the advertising block.
Federal Minister of Education Karin Prien put it well: It is “a very simplified debate being held here”. That's true. An age ban on TikTok sounds like action. But it's not as long as no one explains how a 13-year-old should learn to see through an algorithm, recognize disinformation, or understand the difference between a true friendship and a digital follower.
Change is faster than fear
What concerns me the most in this whole debate: How rapidly this world is changing and how much slower our social response to it is.
My generation has experienced the introduction of the Internet, the rise of Google, the first social networks, the smartphone, streaming, AI assistants. All within about 25 years. And every time the panic bell was rung first, then the ban demand was made. Only with time, sometimes decades later, was the need for competence recognized.
The pattern is as reliable as it is frustrating.
Considering that the generation that is debating social media bans today has grown up with counterstrike, ICQ and illegal MP3s from Napster and has mostly not developed sociopathic traits, then the current debate may be a little more relaxed. Not lightly. But more relaxed.
What Really Helps
The Conference of Ministers of Education is right: Media literacy is needed in schools, and parents need to be involved. Both are more difficult to implement than a ban. This is precisely why a ban is often preferred, because bans are immediately visible and easy to implement. Media literacy, on the other hand, is tedious, needs role models and time.
Lower Saxony is currently testing a ‘social media driving licence’. At first, this sounds like one of those typical German ideas, which already seem a bit overwhelmed in the name. But the idea behind it is correct: We teach children how to ride a bike, how to swim, how to read a contract. Why not also how to recognize an algorithm that manipulates your own attention?
On June 24, a committee of experts will present nearly 50 recommendations to schools, parents, daycare centers and doctors. I look forward to seeing what happens in practice.
Addendum: The Commission delivered first. Even 56, the nerds. 😉 Nice. There should even be an AI seahorse, not just the social media driving license announced above. Perhaps the Commission would have to grab one or the other influencer again to transplant the wording a little more into the youth language? But at least something was delivered.
Here you can download the ‘short version’ of the 56 recommendations for action directly as a PDF.
TL:DR
I was there when killer games were supposed to ruin youth and young adults. I was there when the internet was supposed to destroy social literacy. I was there when smartphones were supposed to bring the attention span to zero. And yes, I had a GameBoy, Discman, a Walkman and a swing NightRider video cassettes. The other day I even had a FlashGordon radio play cassette in my hand. (Ming’s return, classic) The good news: I'm still alive.
We're still here. Maybe a little more scattered. But there.
Social media is a real issue with real risks, especially for younger children. But the answer is the same as always: Understand, classify, accompany. Don't lock it away and hope the problem resolves itself.
That's never worked. And this time it won't.