(de-news.net) – Ahead of the CDU’s national convention, Hendrik Streeck, the federal government’s commissioner for drug and addiction policy, renewed and further clarified his call for regulatory intervention in the ongoing debate over minors’ access to social media. He argued that prohibiting social media use for children under the age of 14 was justified on developmental grounds, emphasizing that younger users generally lacked the cognitive and psychological maturity required to reliably recognize, interpret, and resist manipulative platform architectures designed to capture and sustain attention. In the CDU politician’s assessment, such restrictions should not be interpreted as an expression of excessive paternalism or undue state interference, but rather as a proportionate and preventive measure intended to safeguard children during a particularly sensitive and formative stage of neurological, emotional, and social development, when external influences may exert lasting effects.
Streeck further emphasized that regulatory strategies should reflect developmental progression, evolving gradually from categorical restrictions in early childhood toward structured safeguards and increasing levels of individual responsibility during adolescence. Within this framework, he argued that platform operators bore heightened obligations of care when designing and operating services accessible to minors, and that system architecture should be oriented toward user protection rather than optimized exclusively for engagement maximization. He stressed that the effectiveness of any regulatory approach depended on the implementation of reliable and enforceable technical standards, especially robust and verifiable age authentication mechanisms capable of ensuring compliance. At the same time, he underscored the necessity of consistently enforcing existing youth protection laws, noting that regulatory credibility depended on practical implementation rather than formal statutory provisions alone. By framing youth media protection as an issue of public health, developmental integrity, and democratic resilience, he situated the debate within a broader societal context that extended beyond technological governance. He also emphasized the complementary importance of strengthening media literacy and supporting parental guidance, while reiterating that digital participation remained indispensable but must take place within environments deliberately structured to promote safety, psychological well-being, and healthy development. In this regard, he called for scientifically grounded, cross-party policymaking capable of addressing systemic risks in a coherent and sustainable manner.
Algorithmic design and youth vulnerability require preventive restrictions
Addressing the broader structural dimension of the issue, Streeck observed that social media had become deeply embedded in the everyday experiences of children and adolescents, thereby exerting a formative influence on identity formation, socialization, and cognitive development. While acknowledging the platforms’ potential to facilitate communication, information access, and social connectivity, he cautioned that patterns of problematic or compulsive usage were becoming increasingly prevalent, citing estimates indicating that approximately one in four children exhibited behaviors associated with elevated risk. He emphasized that these developments should not be interpreted primarily as individual failings or deficits in personal responsibility, but rather as predictable outcomes of platform business models deliberately engineered to maximize user engagement and prolong attention. According to his analysis, specific design features—including infinite scrolling interfaces, automated playback functions, and highly individualized algorithmic targeting—exerted disproportionate influence on developing neurological systems that remained particularly susceptible to external stimuli. He further warned that algorithmic amplification mechanisms facilitated the dissemination and reinforcement of violent, extremist, and anti-democratic content, thereby intensifying exposure risks. In light of these structural dynamics, he advocated the establishment of binding age standards and more consistent regulatory enforcement as necessary instruments for mitigating systemic harm and restoring an appropriate balance between technological innovation and youth protection.
At the state level, Daniel Günther (CDU), Minister-President of Schleswig-Holstein, endorsed an even broader regulatory approach, advocating a prohibition extending to individuals under the age of 16. He argued that early and decisive intervention was necessary to protect minors from exposure to content and interactions that were both developmentally inappropriate and potentially harmful. These included violent and sexual material, predatory communication, algorithmically mediated manipulation, cyberbullying, and the promotion of unrealistic physical ideals associated with psychological distress and disordered behavioral patterns. In his assessment, children and younger adolescents lacked the developmental capacity to safely contextualize and process such influences, thereby justifying preventive regulatory measures designed to reduce exposure risks before harm occurred.
Günther’s regional CDU organization intends to formally introduce a motion at the party convention in Stuttgart proposing restrictions on access to certain social media platforms for users under 16. The proposal is expected to be referred to internal party committees and the CDU parliamentary group in the Bundestag for further evaluation and deliberation, reflecting established procedural pathways for policy development. Günther expressed confidence that the initiative would receive majority backing, citing polling data that he said demonstrated broad societal support for stronger youth protections and emphasizing the urgency of implementing preventive measures. Responding to alternative proposals advanced by the SPD that favored a lower age threshold of 14, he acknowledged that determining an appropriate cutoff involved legitimate policy debate, but maintained that 16 represented a more developmentally appropriate and protective standard. He also directed criticism toward platform operators, arguing that their algorithmic infrastructures were designed in ways that reinforced compulsive usage patterns and behavioral dependency, thereby exacerbating risks rather than alleviating them.
