A result with no opposition: 75 % want social media banned for under-15s, 25 % prefer not to decide, and nobody votes against. It is a rare configuration: the « no » camp stayed completely empty.
Women largely support the ban; men split between support and hesitation. No profile comes out against it.
Age provides the day's contrast: the over-65s, the 25-34s and the 45-54s are unanimously in favour, while the 18-24s are entirely without an opinion. The generation most concerned is the only one refusing to take a side.
The debate is far more reserved than the vote, and it comes precisely from the undecided. Their main argument is effectiveness: young people were born with these platforms, a ban would be widely circumvented, and it would be wiser to set up reliable age verification through a trusted third party, so platforms can automatically adapt their features and protections.
A second voice, also undecided, holds the balance: the drawbacks of social media no longer need proving, but their benefits would vanish too for under-15s, and the measure would be very badly received by those it targets. It argues for reinforced regulation rather than a blunt ban.
The majority camp speaks only briefly. One does so in jest, proposing to extend the ban well beyond teenagers in the name of collective mental health, the other simply notes that the law has just been passed. The round therefore pits two registers against each other more than two positions: a quick conviction facing a technical objection.