PalmThere are political decisions that seem designed more to soothe adult consciences than to transform realities. Pedro Sánchez's announcement that he wants to prohibit access to social media for those under sixteen has something of that about it: it sounds forceful, it sounds protective, it sounds responsible. And yet, it's hard not to also see it as a defensive gesture in the face of a collective anxiety that has been growing for some time now, without anyone knowing how to address it.
Because the unease doesn't stem solely from the time that teenagers—and adults—spend glued to their screens, nor from the content that circulates on them, nor even from the ease with which any prohibition can be circumvented in minutes. The unease stems, above all, from knowing that something much larger and much less controllable than a few apps resides within that device. Whoever opens their phone isn't just entering a network; they're entering an opaque ecosystem designed by adults with power, interests, and a disturbing morality.
But if we already knew we were exposed, the trickle of news stemming from the declassification of the Epstein papers has just made it terrifying. The list of names; the murky relationships between political, economic, and media power; the accounts of abuse, violence, and extortion paint a morally devastating picture. Epstein's case is much more than a criminal one: it's a window into a subterranean world—not subterranean at all—that is truly frightening. And the feeling is that what we know is just the tip of the iceberg. That behind the documents, testimonies, and trials lies a much more extensive, more rotten network, whose strings are pulled from luxurious offices and boardrooms where nothing ever happens… until it does. If things continue like this, before long there will be few countries left untouched and few leaders without some embarrassing photograph or an unconfessable friendship.
Then we wonder why fascism is spreading throughout the world. Why do so many people buy into authoritarian, simplistic, and savage rhetoric? Perhaps it's because trust in political, economic, and technological elites has been shattered. When you perceive the world as being run by deeply disturbed, immoral, or downright predatory people, discredit pervades everything.
And it's here that a measure like banning social media for minors can seem, while not entirely without merit, small, tiny, almost insignificant. Like putting a band-aid on systemic bleeding. Because the problem isn't just access, but who governs these spaces, who writes their rules, and with what interests.
Meanwhile, we can continue with the lily in our hand, promoting solidarity struggles, just causes, and necessary resistance. Because suddenly you realize that in front of you is a giant steamroller driven by idiots. Therefore, rather than asking ourselves whether we should take away mobile phones from minors, perhaps we should ask ourselves when we started demanding that others hold the reins of the world.
