From the feed to the town square: the leaders who appoint themselves in whispers

On television, a scene of gratuitous violence cannot be broadcast (Article 37 of Legislative Decree 208/2021); on Netflix, it is protected by a PIN; in a newspaper, the editor-in-chief is held accountable. On social media, it reaches a 12-year-old at four in the afternoon, often selected for them by the algorithm. This is not a matter of freedom of expression, which applies to everyone. Television, streaming services and the press are accountable for what they disseminate; social media is not, because the law regards it as a hosting provider. But a feed that selects a video and pushes it towards a minor is making an editorial choice. And it rewards those who film: when faced with an assault, many people film instead of coming to the victim’s aid, as the law requires (Article 593 of the Criminal Code).

That content was circulating before the mid-October riots in Paris, Milan and Brussels. And it’s not just about violence: trash culture has become a lucrative business and is propelling its protagonists into prime-time television. For a young person, the message is simple: you don’t need to know anything, you just need to be watched. The call to action on 17 October originated on TikTok, just as the French riots over Nahel did in 2023. Decree-Law No. 190 of 22 October 2026 addresses minors and parents, and it is right that those who looted should be held to account. But amongst those responsible for that educational void, there is one that is only mentioned in whispers: the platforms.

Parents are primarily liable for damage caused by their minor children, unless they can prove that they were unable to prevent the incident (Articles 2047 and 2048 of the Civil Code), a form of evidence that the courts rarely accept. To sign up to a social media platform under the age of 14, parental consent is required (Article 2-quinquies of the Privacy Code), which the platform is required to verify (Article 8 of the GDPR), but does not.

The European Digital Services Act (DSA) imposes direct obligations on platforms: a high level of protection for children (Article 28), reporting to the authorities of possible offences that threaten people’s lives or safety (Article 18) and, for very large platforms, the assessment and mitigation of risks to children, mental wellbeing and public safety (Articles 34 and 35). The European Commission has already issued preliminary objections to TikTok regarding its addictive design and to Meta for failing to prevent access by children under the age of 13.

Following the unrest, TikTok suspended live streams inciting violence and restricted monetisation of those covering the protests, in order to prevent, as the company says, their economic exploitation. It could have done so earlier. In China, the local version has for years limited usage by under-14s to 40 minutes a day, and anyone giving live advice on health, finance or law must be qualified. Here too, anyone who provides investment advice without authorisation or practises a profession without a licence is committing an offence (Article 166 of the Consolidated Law on Finance, Article 348 of the Criminal Code): one is free to express an opinion, but advice that guides others’ choices requires expertise. The European Commission, which has sole competence over very large platforms (Article 56), has not activated the crisis response mechanism (Article 36). A national decree cannot impose general obligations on companies based in Ireland (EU Court of Justice, C-376/22). However, AGCOM may restrict content harmful to minors that is directed at the Italian public (Article 41(7) of Legislative Decree 208/2021), and has already done so in 2024.