In the guise of youth protection: In what way opaque, authoritarian power structures increasingly dominate?

In recent years, the regulation of digital content in Europe has increasingly developed under the guise of “youth protection”. In the process, measures are implemented that are officially intended to protect minors, but actually represent profound interventions in the fundamental right to informal self-determination. Behind the seemingly benevolent pretext of theYouth protection is developing a form of censorship that has far-reaching social and democratic consequences.

User Content Rating and Control: A patchwork rug made of restrictions

The focus of this political argument is the user whose content is subjected to a comprehensive assessment: Whether pornographic representations, depictions of violence, political views or pop culture crossing borders – almost everything is considered from the point of view of a potential threat. Providers are forced to check, block ortechnically restricted, although there are no uniform criteria, which is actually classified as harmful to young people. The result is a patchwork of restrictions that not only affect children and young people, but above all restrict adults in their right to informal self-determination.

Technocratic implementation and technical circumvention: The problem of shadow censorship

This form of regulation is often not open or transparent, but in a technocratic way: platforms are obliged to remove certain content, introduce age verifications or observe blocked lists. Internet providers must block access to foreign websites, although such measures can be easily circumvented – for example through VPNs, alternativeDomains or simple technical tricks. This creates a kind of digital shadow censorship: Content is not officially forbidden, but actually made unreachable.

State control and the limits of freedom of expression

This process becomes particularly tricky when the boundaries between legitimate prevention and moral control become blurred. The state declares itself to be the guardian about the content that citizens may be accessible and thus determines what is considered acceptable. This will create the space according to Article 5 of the Basic Law for diverse perspectives, artistic freedom and individualMedia literacy restricted. The responsibility is no longer seen in the individual, but centrally located in political control bodies with state reasons.

Private Actors as Executors of State Censorship: Risks of Impairment

Another critical point is the outsourcing of the censorship to private actors. Digital platforms become in fact executors of government specifications in the digital space. They implement guidelines, interpret unclear laws and decide which content may remain visible. This mixing of state control with private interests leads to anon-transparent authoritarian power structure that is hardly defensible democratically.

The language of public discussion: protection, freedom and the danger of censorship

In the public discussion, this situation is rarely referred to as censorship – because the keyword “youth protection” is considered unassailable and almost sacrosanct. Anyone who criticizes this runs the risk of being portrayed as irresponsible or even endangered. This is precisely why a clear debate is required about how protection and freedom can remain compatible – withoutprotective measures to justify restrictions.

The need to express the term “censorship”.

A silent erosion of liberal basic values arises: The intention may be morally justified, but the means used are not always the case. Anyone who not only keeps an eye on the well-being of young people in this process, but also wants to preserve democratic culture, has to have the courage to express the word “censorship” – even if this seems uncomfortable.