Social media as a digital drug – why a minimum age is urgently needed

The President of the German Teachers' Association, Stefan Düll, considers a legal minimum age for social media to be “removable reality”. Children would have to learn to deal with Tikok and Instagram – like on a street where you sometimes go “beyond the traffic lights”.

That sounds modern – but it fails to recognize reality. Because Tikkok is not a street. Tiktok is a digital stimulus amplifier that has a targeted effect on the weaknesses of the human brain. And that is exactly what makes him so dangerous – especially for children.

Tikok is not an encyclopedia – but a reward system

Of course we need digital education. Of course, children should learn how to find their way around the net. But there is a difference between Wikipedia and Tiktok, between a search engine and an endless feed full of stimuli, likes and artificially generated trends. Tikok, Instagram and Snapchat are not information channels – they are behavior -optimized platforms, the business model of which is based on maximum attention.

Precisely because I am not a friend of flat -rate bans because I basically keep personal responsibility and entrepreneurial freedom high, this requirement is not easy for me. But this is not about ideology – it's about a real overwhelming.

The brain is simply not ready yet

Neuroscientific it is clear: the prefrontal cortex – responsible for impulse control, pre -planning and self -regulation – is not yet fully developed for young people. The reward system, on the other hand, works in full swing. The platforms hit exactly in this gap. If you give children free access to Tiktok, you can drive them on a digital autopilot – with a functioning accelerator pedal, but without brakes.

That is why there is age limits for alcohol and cigarettes – because you know that adults can regulate better. And that's why drugs like cocaine are prohibited – because even adults are overwhelmed. Social media lies somewhere in between: too harmless for the dealer, too overwhelming for the school class.

The study situation is clear

Numerous international studies show that the intensive use of social media is closely related to mental stress among young people – and that is strikingly consistent across national borders, age groups and measurement methods.

A long-term study with over 6,500 young people aged 12 to 15 showed that those who significantly increased their daily social media use have developed significantly more depressive symptoms. Conversely, the effect was not detectable – not depression leads to use, but the use of depression.

The psychologist Jean Twenge has documented the connection between social media and mental health for years. Even with more than an hour of daily use, there are increased signs of inner restlessness and depression. Young people who are online for five hours a day report twice as often about mental stress as they are more useful with the same age. Your analyzes show a striking turning point around 2012 – exactly the moment the smartphone became an everyday object. Development in girls is particularly clear: in the USA, the rates of self -harmful behavior and suicidal thoughts have almost doubled among teenagers since 2010 – a dynamic that can also be observed in Canada and Great Britain. The time run with the rise of visual platforms such as Instagram and Tiktok is striking – and was confirmed in several cohort analyzes.

The social psychologist Jonathan Haidt has prepared this data in large -scale meta studies. His results show: Especially the introduction to visual social media such as Instagram or Tikok, typically in the early teenager, are associated with increased risk of loneliness, fear, sleep disorders and depressive episodes. It is not the pure screen time that is particularly problematic, but the interplay of algorithmic stimulus overstimulation, social comparison and emotional dependency.

Technical age control? Of course possible.

The claim that a ban was technically unexpected is not convincing. Age verification on the Internet has long been feasible-be it by ID, via biometric processes or through secure app access. Australia and France show which way you can go. Of course, such systems can be avoided. But that also applies to cigarette machines – and yet they have an effect. And if the EU manages to regulate every cookie banner to the last niche with the digital services, then it will also be able to enforce an age verification for social media. Of course, no system is complete. But that's not the point.

It's about orientation. A ban is not just a legal measure – It is a cultural signal: it shows where responsibility begins. There are parents the backing that they often miss. It relieves schools that stand alone with the consequences of overwhelmed children. And it clearly says: “This world is there – but not for you yet.”

Conclusion

Social media are not windows to the world – they are filters that have a say in what we think is to be. Tiktok & Co. influence what children are based on, for which they get recognition – and how they see themselves. And they do this by targeting the reward system, while cognitive self -control is not yet trained. If you take freedom seriously, you should not send children unprotected to an environment that is optimized for manipulation. Media literacy does not start with Tikkok – it begins with a safe framework. And it is precisely this. Still.