The proposal by Thuringia’s Minister-President Mario Voigt to ban smartphone use for those under 14 and social media for those under 16 has ignited a contentious debate within the German Bundestag, exposing deep divisions over how to protect young people in the digital age. While Voigt’s suggestion, presented in “Welt” newspaper, aims to shield children from perceived online harms, it has been met with skepticism and alternative approaches from across the political spectrum.
The conservative Union faction distanced itself from Voigt’s sweeping proposal, arguing for a more nuanced strategy. Anja Weisgerber (CSU), the faction’s deputy chairwoman, emphasized the need for “guardrails, safe spaces and age-appropriate access” advocating instead for a “triad” of measures including strengthened age verification on platforms, eliminating manipulative algorithms and advertising and fostering digital literacy through school programs and parental education. Amendments to criminal law to better safeguard children from sexualized content and cyber-grooming were also highlighted.
The SPD rejected the blanket ban as ineffective, proposing a “layered approach” modeled after the Leopoldina study, emphasizing age-appropriate access restrictions and platform design alongside stringent enforcement of existing age limits, which are currently easily circumvented. The party underscored the critical need to hold platforms and manufacturers accountable for verifying age and preventing underage access.
The AfD, predictably, vehemently opposed Voigt’s proposal, characterizing it as an attempt to stifle free speech and reassert a perceived elitist control over public discourse. Götz Frömming, the AfD’s parliamentary group secretary, argued that such measures threaten to undermine democratic freedoms and advocated for a more restrictive approach to digital media in schools, prioritizing fundamental skills like reading, writing and arithmetic over technology. Frömming also stressed the importance of parental rights and limitations on state intervention in family matters.
The Green Party shifted the focus of the debate, arguing that the primary concern should not be the behaviour of children, but rather the responsibility of adult perpetrators and negligent platform operators. Misbah Khan, the party’s parliamentary vice-leader, criticized the government for lacking the resources to effectively oversee and investigate these companies.
Similarly, the Left party deemed Voigt’s proposal disproportionate and counterproductive, arguing that it hinders participation and fails to address the root of the problem-a lack of media literacy. Donata Vogtschmidt, the party’s spokesperson for digital policy and cybersecurity, highlighted the integral role social media plays in information and education for younger generations.
The Association for Education and Upbringing (VBE) while acknowledging the need to protect children, criticized Voigt’s comparison of smartphones, social media and harmful substances like alcohol and cigarettes. The association stressed the potential benefits of responsible digital engagement while recognizing the need for technical solutions to shield minors from harmful content, again placing the onus on platform providers.
The diverging responses reveal a complex ideological battleground regarding the state’s role in regulating digital access for young people, with significant questions arising about the balance between protecting vulnerable individuals and preserving individual freedoms and parental autonomy.