Is the radio dangerous?

“We will no longer accept that. We will protect them,” stated Pedro Sánchez, the Spanish Prime Minister, at the World Governments Summit in Dubai last February. The questions that arise are the following: protect whom? Protect them from what? What is the Prime Minister referring to? The answer is that Pedro Sánchez, with such a statement, was aiming to create a major headline, the kind that moves society, and he succeeded. Not even 24 hours later, the headline appeared: “Spain announces plans to ban social media for under-16s,” reported the BBC. The announcement quickly gained significant attention, not only in the political arena but also within the technology industry where the common behaviour from technology companies once again emerged. They cynically defend apps such as Telegram, in which users’ rights often remain at the bottom of the priority list. As a firsthand example, Spanish citizens received the following message from Pavel Durov, the CEO of Telegram, shortly after the Prime Minister’s announcement of a possible social media ban.

Pavel Durov (Telegram CEO) message

This message clearly highlights the questionable concern of major companies for the well-being of Spanish citizens, despite the damage their platforms have caused. This contrast becomes even clearer when examined alongside data on young Spaniards’ use of social media.  In Spain, more than nine out of ten adolescents are active on at least one social network, and three quarters use three or more. Moreover, mobile phone ownership is widespread from a young age: 41% of children own a phone by age 10, 76% by age 12, and 92.8% in secondary education. Such early exposure has significant consequences. A Sapiens Labs study of 28,000 young people found that the later children receive their first phone or tablet, the better their psychological and social well-being is in early adulthood. In detail, among women who received a phone at the age of six, 74% later reported mental health challenges, as compared with 46% of those who received one at 18. For men, the figures were 42% versus 36%. The pattern is clear: earlier exposure correlates with poorer mental health outcomes.

As shown, it becomes evident that technology has entered the world’s major debates, often because of its clear negative effects. Extending this line of thought, someone could argue that in the twenty-first century, technology, as a topic, deserves a place among the foremost philosophical issues, on par with themes such as death, love, and life. It might be a step in the right direction; understanding technology through a philosophical perspective will allow us to grasp more clearly what is happening.

The voice of a visionary

Gabriel Marcel (1889–1973) was a French philosopher and playwright whose work focused on existence, human experience, and the search for meaning. His reflections on technology emerge from his broader understanding of the philosopher’s task: not to reconstruct events as the historian does, but to grasp and make visible their inner meaning, what Marcel calls the “soul” of events. Following this line of thought, one of his most important claims is that technology itself is not evil; on the contrary, Marcel argues that technology expresses human rationality and contains no intrinsic moral corruption. This standpoint is essential, because Marcel’s critique is not anti-technology but opposed to technological domination. Marcel shows that modern technology is presented as a form of seduction, while in reality it ends in coercion, leaving humans unable to free themselves from it. Such point of view can be understood as follows: technology does not openly force obedience; instead, it offers comfort, efficiency, and pleasure. However, precisely through these benefits, it traps individuals and makes detachment extremely difficult. It is crucial to note that, even though this thought resonates deeply with our daily lives, Marcel referred to modern technology as the radio. This highlights how visionary he was.

In this context, someone could argue that Marcel’s argument might be convincing when applied to radio, but it becomes even more relevant when we consider social media and the influence of large corporations. Social media is already addictive, and Big Tech companies’ resistance to bans or strict regulation makes it even harder for individuals to step away and overcome this dependence. To put it differently, social media is a seductive technology and what appears to be freedom of choice is, in reality, a system that reinforces dependence. Marcel was right. He further develops his argument, showing that technology often presents itself as a way to alleviate human fears—its method to seduce— while in reality it leaves us enslaved to it. This idea applies clearly to social media: platforms such as X claim to promote freedom of speech and human expression, yet they simultaneously create forms of dependency that make disengagement increasingly difficult. What is offered as liberation ultimately becomes a new form of domination.

Another central concept in this discussion is uniformity. Marcel warns that technological development tends to produce a growing homogeneity of life: beliefs, customs, and traditions are flattened into standardized forms. Although he was referring to the radio, it is plausible to argue that social media accelerates this process by privileging viral content and dominant narratives. In this sense, someone could argue that Big Tech benefits from this uniformity because standardized users are predictable, manageable, and profitable.

Nevertheless, Marcel is optimistic and proposes a solution to this problem. His starting point is that the solution is not technical but existential. We do not need to destroy all technology; instead, he introduces the idea of recollection, which can be understood as a turning inward that restores balance between inner and outer life. In other words, it is an inner conquest aimed at greater self-mastery. Moreover, recollection is not necessarily religious; it is a recovery of presence and humility that resists the arrogance of technology. From this perspective, a social media ban could be interpreted as a structural interruption that makes recollection possible. Once again philosophy has shown that it has much to say about contemporary problems, and this time it not only provides a sharp analysis but also offers a solution—some might call it ambiguous. Even so, we all understand that what we truly need is a pause, a moment of “recollection.” Further, it is worth highlighting that Marcel drew all these conclusions from the radio and managed to foresee the problems that technology could bring. Therefore, I cannot help but wonder: if Marcel drew these problems from the radio, what conclusions would he draw from today’s social media?