“Banning social media would not solve the underlying problems.”

As concerns about mental health, democratic discourse, and platform power grow, calls for stronger regulation – and even bans for minors – have entered mainstream politics. These developments raise broader questions about how digital environments shape socialisation, identity, and public life. Against this backdrop, Senior Professor of Public Health and Education Klaus Hurrelmann underscores the importance of combining effective platform regulation with comprehensive digital education.

Hurrelmann’s research focusses on health and education policy, particularly childhood and adolescence. In this interview, we explore how digital platforms are transforming the process of ‘growing up’, the risks and opportunities they present, and what this means for policy, regulation and digital literacy in Europe and beyond. 

Professor Hurrelmann, you have studied adolescence for decades. Digital platforms are now a central part of young people’s everyday lives. From your perspective, how do these platforms shape the social environment in which young people grow up today? What do you see as the most important risks and opportunities associated with their influence? 

Digital platforms are now a defining part of young people’s social environment, shaping communication, identity formation, and everyday life. Adolescents grow up with these technologies as a normal part of their world, making them inseparable from processes of development and socialisation. 

These platforms offer important opportunities: access to information, constant communication, and new forms of self-expression. Young people can experiment with identity and connect beyond their immediate surroundings, supporting personal development and participation. 

At the same time, these benefits come with risks. Platforms are designed to maximise engagement, which can encourage excessive use and reduce self-control. Many young people report stress, anxiety, sleep problems, and pressure from social comparison and cyberbullying. 

A key challenge is navigating complex digital environments. Algorithmic content and constant information flows can be overwhelming. Adolescents are particularly vulnerable, as their self-regulation skills are still developing. 

Digital platforms are both enabling and challenging environments for young people. They offer valuable tools for creativity, connection and identity-building, but they also carry risks of overuse, emotional strain and reduced autonomy. The overall impact depends strongly on how these platforms are designed and how well young people are supported in developing the skills to use them critically and in a self-determined way. 

In recent months, the idea of restricting or even banning social media use for children and adolescents has gained momentum in several countries. Supporters argue that such measures could protect mental health, reduce manipulation by algorithms, and safeguard democracy. How do you assess this debate and the arguments for and against a ban? And how does the discussion in Germany and Europe compare with developments in other parts of the world? 

The growing debate about banning or restricting social media for minors reflects concern about psychological, social and democratic risks. Proposals such as age limits or outright bans appear as an intuitive protective response. They also point to a duty of care, given adolescents’ limited capacity for self-regulation and the power imbalance between users and platforms. 

However, there are strong counterarguments that suggest a ban would not solve the underlying problem. The most important limitation is that it does not change how platforms are designed or operated. Instead, it simply delays access – often until mid-adolescence – without addressing the attention-driven mechanisms that create risk in the first place. Critics also warn that a ban would restrict young people’s freedom and exclude them from a central space of contemporary social life. For many adolescents, social media is not an optional add-on but a core environment for communication, identity formation, and participation. Removing access could reduce opportunities for self-expression and the development of digital competence, rather than enhancing them. 

There are additional concerns about feasibility and unintended effects. Restrictions may push young users into less regulated spaces and are difficult to enforce. From a democratic perspective, excluding young people could weaken their ability to develop as informed digital citizens. 

In Europe, and particularly in Germany, the debate is therefore more cautious than in some other regions. Rather than pursuing outright bans, the focus tends to be on regulation, platform accountability, and better enforcement of existing rules. The European Union already has legal instruments that could be used to strengthen oversight of digital platforms, but these are not yet consistently applied.

You have suggested that instead of banning young people from platforms, societies should focus on stronger regulation of technology companies and the promotion of digital literacy. What kinds of regulatory measures and educational approaches would be most important to create a healthier digital environment for the younger generation? 

A more sustainable approach combines stronger platform regulation with digital literacy. Instead of restricting users, it focusses on shaping platform conditions and strengthening user competence. 

Regulation should address platform design and business models. Greater transparency around algorithms, data use, and content ranking is essential. Harmful design features – such as endless scrolling – should be limited, and platforms should be held accountable for systemic risks like disinformation and harmful content. Stronger user rights and measures against market concentration are also important. However, all of this requires robust regulatory institutions with real enforcement power. 

At the same time, non-commercial digital spaces should be supported through public funding and institutions such as schools, libraries, and public broadcasters, ensuring that education and public communication are not dependent on the logic of commercial platforms. 

Equally important is digital literacy. Young people need skills to understand how platforms influence behaviour, evaluate information, and manage their use. This includes recognising algorithmic systems, persuasive design, and commercial incentives. Digital education should be integrated into school curricula and supported by broader public initiatives. 

The goal is not avoidance but resilience. Young people should learn to use digital technologies in a reflective and self-regulated way. Digital literacy also includes media and civic education, enabling informed participation in online discourse. Democratic competence is developed through engagement, not exclusion. 

In conclusion, a ban may appear to offer a simple solution, but it does not address the underlying structural problems of the digital environment. A more effective and sustainable two-fold response lies in combining the strong political regulation of platforms with comprehensive digital education. This approach shifts responsibility from individual restriction to structural reform and empowerment, turning digital technologies from a perceived risk into a space of learning, participation and development. 

The Hertie School is not responsible for any content linked or referred to from these pages. Views expressed by the interviewee may not necessarily reflect the views and values of the Hertie School.