Teenagers who go against the grain: "I can live without social media"

PalmIt's two in the afternoon. In Plaça del Tub, in the center of Palma, hundreds of students leave the Ramon Llull and Joan Alcover high schools almost simultaneously. It's a moment that repeats itself every day and has become a ritual. Since the Ministry of Education banned the use of mobile phones inside schools, many young people carry them hidden in their backpacks and, as soon as they cross the threshold, they hurriedly turn them on. In a few seconds, their eyes are glued to the screen to check dozens—or hundreds—of notifications. They walk in groups, but with their phones in hand and their eyes glued to their devices. Perhaps, in a few weeks, this scene might cease to be so common.

The Spanish government wants to prohibit access to social media for those under 16, forcing platforms to implement age verification systems to prevent minors from creating profiles or consuming content on TikTok, Instagram, or similar services. The proposal has sparked intense debate among teenagers who have grown up surrounded by screens, but who also recognize the risks of intensive use. The debate, however, is not starting from scratch. "It's already prohibited: last year a Minors' Law was passed establishing that minors under 16 need parental authorization to open profiles on social media. TikTok sets the minimum age at 13 and Instagram at 14. That raises many questions. There are thousands of teenagers who falsify their age," explains a teacher (CEP) from Calvià and specialist in new technologies. "I think the ban will have some effect, but there will still be people who circumvent it. Furthermore, it's difficult to control, because there are already teenagers who are fully immersed in it," he adds.

Among young people, the debate isn't so polarized. "I have a friend who, if she's grounded from her phone, suddenly asks for mine to log into her accounts and check social media. She feels the need to constantly check if she's been messaged, if she's received new things... It would be good for her to have them somewhat restricted," explains 15-year-old Julia. "I think it's good that they're being banned, although sometimes people use them for good, and I wouldn't stop them," she adds.

María is 13 and is aware of the problematic role of social media: "It's good that they're being banned, because what you see on social media is changing young people's political opinions, and it causes addictions that can end very badly and cause emotional suffering. On a day when I'm really hooked, at most, I can dedicate some time to it." When asked how a future ban would affect her, she doesn't hesitate. "I can live without social media," she affirms.

Among her friends, Aina, also 13, explains her reality, which is not very common among young people: "I don't have social media, and many of my classmates don't either. We don't take our phones to school. I have parental controls, and social media is prohibited." "I think it's good that social media is prohibited because some people are very addicted. If they prohibit it, mental health problems linked to its use will decrease," she continues.

The focus is on the platforms

For experts, the core of the problem isn't just the age of access. "The ban reflects the government's concern, but it focuses on the user and not the platforms," ​​warns Cerdà. He explains that digitization has been accompanied by a loss of editorial responsibility: "Over the years, information has become increasingly digital, and control over content has been lost. When newspapers were printed, editors assumed clear responsibility for what was published. Now that society has shifted towards digitalization, it seems that nothing can be demanded of anyone."

"If platforms were held responsible for the content and who displays it, there would be no need to ban anything. Platforms can do it, but they only do so in matters such as copyright. For example, YouTube is capable of controlling practically the entire world's music catalog. The technical capacity exists, but governments lack the will to enforce it."

The Spanish government's proposal also aims to address illegal and offensive content with greater traceability and faster removal processes. "Hate speech has increased dramatically. Besides, any video can go viral. If a racist video appears, many people take it as humor and share it," warns Julia. "In class, we did a workshop on coexistence, and social media has affected people quite a bit. I have a friend who used to be an open-minded person, and now, because of what she's seen on social media, she's not so much anymore," explains Aina. In this digital ecosystem, the key is the algorithm. What it shows—and what it hides—ends up shaping perspectives, tastes, and opinions. "Hate speech depends on the algorithm you have. Mine shows me things about Gabriel Rufián. But it's not always like that. I know people who have formed their ideology based on TikTok videos of Vito Quiles or El Chocas. People believe them," María offers as an example.

Meanwhile, education is lagging far behind. According to Cerdà, the last digital training for teachers was in 2022, before the rise of AI and its effects: "The education system is not prepared to educate teenagers in digital use. Technology has advanced much faster than the evolution of societies. If companies are moving at this speed, it's difficult for the education system to keep up."

Families, limits, and shared responsibilities

Families are viewing the Spanish government's proposal with interest but caution. "The widespread use of social media among minors is both evident and a cause for concern. Families are worried," explains Miquel Àngel Guerrero, director of the FAPA's technical office. He states that a ban might be appropriate, but not sufficient: "A ban until the age of 16 seems quite appropriate, not only for social media, but also for other internet content, such as pornography or AI applications, which can cause significant harm." Guerrero warns that, without effective mechanisms, banning social media doesn't make much sense. "It would be imprudent to congratulate anyone without verifying whether the ban is accompanied by real penalties for companies. There are control mechanisms, but they need to be implemented, and even then, they might not be enough," he says. Furthermore, he advocates for gradual learning: "Up to the age of 16, there should be education on the use of technology that allows young people to reach that age with greater discernment and responsibility."

Both Cerdà and Guerrero agree that focusing solely on prohibition is insufficient. "I see more posturing in these bans than real solutions. It's naive to think this fixes anything if the main issue isn't addressed: right now, nobody takes responsibility for lying, defaming, or fabricating information," Cerdà criticizes. He also points to the EU's nonexistent role. "It could monitor content, but there's no courage to force the big tech companies to act, or even to make them pay taxes. They operate in Europe, but pay taxes in tax havens," he says.

One of the keys to tackling the problem, according to Guerrero, is shared responsibility: "The issue of social media isn't the fault of just one actor: families, young people, teachers, companies, and governments are all involved. Blaming only one group—families, teachers, or companies—isn't fair: everyone has a share of the responsibility." Meanwhile, outside schools, cell phones continue to be switched on punctually at two in the afternoon. The question is whether a ban will be enough to change a scene that has become part of the everyday landscape.