Governments never present control as control. It is always framed as protection. In France, the justification is shielding children from harmful content online. But once the state begins targeting tools designed to preserve privacy and free access, the issue is no longer child safety but authority over the internet itself.
In late January, the French National Assembly passed a bill banning social media access for individuals under 15, requiring robust age verification systems on all major platforms. The measure, championed as a safeguard against harmful content, mirrors similar age-restriction laws emerging across Europe and Australia.
Now, France’s digital policymakers are signaling that the next target could be virtual private networks (VPNs), which is one of the internet’s oldest tools for safeguarding privacy and bypassing censorship. “VPNs are the next subject on my list,” declared Anne Le Hénanff, France’s minister delegate for digital affairs. This comes weeks after the social media ban was approved, as officials seek ways to prevent minors from sidestepping age checks using encryption tools.
The claim: If VPNs allow children to evade age filters, then restricting them would enforce the law more effectively. Government believes it should parent your children and you. The internet is no longer a space of free exchange and open access, but a domain to be regulated, surveilled, and ultimately controlled.
This is not an isolated policy choice by France. It reflects a broader shift in how governments view the internet. What was once a decentralized, open system is increasingly treated as infrastructure to be licensed, monitored, and controlled. Age verification sounds reasonable on the surface, but enforcement requires identity checks, data collection, and centralized oversight. Once VPNs are labeled a problem because they interfere with enforcement, encryption itself becomes the target.
History shows that freedom is rarely abolished outright. It is narrowed step by step. Each restriction is justified as temporary, limited, or necessary. First, it is to protect children. Then to combat misinformation. Then to enforce taxes, sanctions, or public order. The cumulative effect is always the same: the individual loses autonomy, and the state gains visibility and leverage.
We have already seen this progression elsewhere. China and Russia did not begin with total internet control. They began by regulating tools that allowed people to bypass official narratives. Democratic governments insist they are different, but once they adopt the same mechanisms with identity-linked access, restricted encryption, and approved routing.
The argument that VPNs must be restricted because they undermine regulation turns the logic of freedom on its head. Privacy tools exist precisely because governments and corporations seek to monitor behavior. When the state decides that privacy itself is unacceptable, the internet ceases to be a free medium and becomes an extension of policy enforcement.
This is not about teenagers using social media. It is about who controls access to information and communication in the digital age. Once governments assert the right to decide when and how citizens may shield themselves online, the balance of power shifts permanently.
