There is a curious coincidence every time a country tries to protect minors on the internet: very rich, very indignant, and very offended gentlemen appear talking about freedom. Not about children's freedom, of course. About theirs.
The proposal to restrict access to social networks for minors under 16 in Spain has caused exactly that: a textbook digital tantrum. And, honestly, when those who get angry are the owners of the business, it's usually a good sign.
Social networks are not designed to educate, accompany, or care for. They are designed to hook, to measure dopamine, to exploit insecurities, and to turn every emotion—even those of a minor—into a sellable data point.
The adolescent brain has not finished developing. Exposing a minor to an ecosystem based on constant comparison, external validation, and permanent stimulation is not freedom, it's abandonment with wifi.
Elon Musk decided to call tyranny a measure designed to protect children. From a network where moderation is almost decorative, he confuses regulation with censorship and protection with personal attack.
Pavel Durov, founder of Telegram, also did not take long to warn of a supposed authoritarian state. A curious concept of freedom for those who manage platforms where anonymity, disinformation, and harmful content circulate unchecked, but they are scandalized when someone mentions the word responsibility.
Restricting access to social networks until the age of 16 is not censorship. It is the same principle as not letting a minor drive, vote, or sign contracts. No one shouts dictatorship for that, except those who lose money.
This is not about turning off screens. It's about setting limits for platforms that have not shown they know how to self-regulate. It's about mental health weighing more than engagement.
If this measure bothers tech billionaires, if it causes anger in Silicon Valley, if it touches very specific economic interests, then we are probably on the right track.
