Can Spain ban social networks that rely on a business model to exonerate citizens?

The problem is that this particular path is not feasible in the current legal framework of the European Union. But just because an option isn’t legal doesn’t mean there aren’t anyand this is where the debate really matters.

Over the past few years, the European Union has built a regulatory body that has a significant impact what my fellow countries can and cannot do por su cuenta

Over the past few years, the European Union has built a regulatory body that regulates much of what my member states can and cannot do.

General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) It is clear that the systematic surveillance of citizens is not a neutral or harmless activity and sets limits, obligations and sanctions.

Ley de Servicios Digitales (DSA) and Ley de Mercados Digitales (DMA) they did so, reserving a central role for the European Commission in overseeing large platforms and limiting the ability of states to act unilaterally.

This has a direct consequence: Spain cannot decide prosecute Meta or TikTok directors do not impose structural conditions on the sidelines of a common European brand as long as there is political temptation.

Ahora bien, de ahí no one can infer that Spain is holding its hands. What cannot be done is to create a repressive regime incompatible with Community legislation.

Spain cannot decide to prosecute the directors of Meta or TikTok or impose structural conditions on them at the border of the European common mark

But what can be done is strictly comply with existing regulationsuse all available administrative tools and, above all, stimulate debates that will eventually be transferred to the European level, where the essentials are decided.

The relevant question is that in Spain you can ban Instagram, Facebook, Threads or TikTok by decree, because the honest answer is no, although that would be great. The question is whether we can make a decisive contribution to this Some business models are legal in Europe.

In this context, a false solution that enjoys great political popularity often appears: prohibit access to social networks to persons under the age of 16. It’s an intuitive idea, seemingly protective and highly profitable in name, but deeply problematic.

Not only does it attack the core of the problem, the tracking and data mining model, until brings other more serious questions. To deny access for this reason, it is necessary to identify the user in an appropriate way, and this is the case technical and political dilemma first order.

To deny access for this reason, it is necessary to identify the user in a trusted way, which raises a technical and political dilemma

Identifying data online is not a trivial problem. Without advanced cryptographic systems such as verifiable anonymous credentials or knowledge tools, the only realistic alternative is some type of centralized registry: identity documents, databases, intermediaries who certify this and that.

that’s it the exact opposite of what is said to protect. And to think that this type of solution can be implemented in a secure and privacy-friendly way in a country with a public debate only about what encryption is, how it works, or why it’s necessary for digital passwords. and naïve to say the least.

Also, open the door to mandatory identification systems for access to social networks not only for adults. Create control infrastructure that can be easily expanded to the village council. Now it’s “protecting children” but “combating misinformation”, ensuring “good behavior” or “national security”.

Technological history is replete with examples of domestic goods created with supremely noble ends being used monitor, discriminate or suppress. By introducing a generalized mechanism of identification in social networks, the state and third parties are supposed to gain power, which they will later take away. And you never know who might go to work.

The introduction of a general mechanism of identification in social networks is intended to give the state power to third parties that can be easily taken away later.

before that Banning a commercial model is something very different from banning a collection. Massive surveillance for commercial purposes is not a natural law or an inevitable consequence of the Internet until they are the result of political decisions and specific rebuttals previously made (or not made).

Spain, like my country, can strengthen the application of GDPRequip your authority with real data protection tools, systematically sanction unfair practices and prevent fines from being seen as mere transaction costs. It can also be implemented within consumer protection and competence, dealing with fictitious consents, manipulative interfaces and opaque advertising markets.

Y, above all You can have a latent debate in Brussels: If public behavior based on user surveillance is to be followed, it is legal. Because this debate is not only about large social circles.

The tracking model is discussed in detail, Google, advertising intermediaries like Criteo and a large part of the media and services are taking center stage which now depends on targeting its users in a systematic way.

This explains the resistance: we are not talking about four concrete platforms until the entire economic infrastructure built on the systematic acquisition of personal data.

In Spain today you cannot outlaw Instagram or TikTok for your content, you cannot solve the problem with symbolic bans because they generate more risks than those that eliminate them.

But you can abandon grand gestures without legal penalty and abandon them for a more inconvenient and effective strategy: apply the law to the end, pushing for regulatory changes at the European level and assuming that a business model based on the exploitation of citizens is not an inevitable collateral damage of the digital economy, but a political decision. A true question cannot be answered until you are satisfied.

***Enrique Dans is Professor of Innovation at IE University.