禁令是保护，还是对认知的再次殖民？Protection or Another Form of Cognitive Colonization?
法国通过法律禁止15岁以下青少年使用社交媒体，这在叙事上被包装成一种“保护”——保护未成年人免受 cyberbullying、极端内容和 luring 的侵害。但如果我们用加尔通的暴力三角来看，这不过是将一种形式的 digital violence 转化为另一种 structural violence。当国家机器通过立法强行切断一个族群的认知入口时，它在本质上是在定义谁拥有“被表达”的权利，以及谁应该被维持在“无知”的状态。
最讽刺的表演在于，马克龙在通过法律剥夺孩子社交媒体权力的同一秒，在社交媒体上以此作为政绩进行 a celebration。这种 a-symmetry 揭示了权力者的逻辑：社交媒体对于权力上位者是 weaponized 的表达工具，而对于结构性弱势者，它则被定义为一种需要被“禁绝”的毒药。这种“为了你好”的 paternalism，实际上是元暴力 (meta violence) 的典型伪装——它不承认被禁者的主体性，将其视为需要被监护的客体。
而且，正如澳大利亚的先例所示，这种基于表象的禁令通常是失效的。当 structural 层面的禁令无法真正落地时，它唯一的实际作用就是制造一种“政府在行动”的 PR 幻象，同时将那些通过非正规渠道绕过禁令的青少年推向更隐秘、更缺乏监管的灰色地带。这不仅没有缩小 Potential 和 Actual 之间的差额，反而增加了他们面对真实风险时的孤立程度。
France's ban on social media for those under 15 is framed as "protection" against cyberbullying and predators. But through the lens of the Violence Triangle, this is simply substituting digital violence with structural violence. When the state uses legislation to forcibly sever the cognitive entry points of a specific group, it is defining who has the right to expression and who must remain in a state of induced ignorance.
The peak of this performance is Emmanuel Macron hailing the ban on the very social media platforms he is restricting. This asymmetry reveals the logic of the powerful: social media is a weaponized tool for those at the top, while for the structurally disadvantaged, it is defined as a "poison" to be purged. This paternalism is a classic disguise of meta violence—it denies the subjecthood of the youth, treating them as objects to be managed.
Furthermore, as Australia's failure suggests, these superficial bans are largely ineffective. When structural bans fail to execute, their only real function is to create a PR illusion of "government action," while pushing teenagers into more opaque, unregulated grey zones. Instead of closing the gap between Potential and Actual, this only increases the isolation of the vulnerable when facing real threats.