In high school, social media extends relationships between students well beyond the classroom and can accelerate the spread of threats, rumors, or humiliating content. Speaking on RMC, entrepreneur and platform specialist Fabrice Epelboin described the situation as a “collapse of the rule of law.” The phrase highlights a central question: how can rules be enforced and people protected when digital exchanges take place on private services, circulate quickly, and often elude the usual responses available to schools?
High schools and social media: when the rule of law falters
School life no longer ends at the high school gates. Conversations continue in messaging groups, posts, and videos accessible on social media. A disagreement that starts in a classroom can thus be discussed, shared, or amplified at any hour. The students involved sometimes find themselves facing the same tensions at home, on their screens, without the school being able to intervene easily in every space where they arise.
This continuity between the school environment and platforms makes it harder to identify what happened and who is responsible. A post can be deleted, copied, and then recirculated in another form. The people targeted, witnesses, and potential perpetrators are not always at the same school, while content can cross several networks in a matter of minutes.
An authority confronted with private digital spaces
In a high school, rules apply within a familiar institutional framework: students, educational staff, and internal procedures. Online, some exchanges take place on services designed and administered by private companies. Schools must therefore work with tools whose moderation rules and timelines for handling reports they do not control.
The reference to the rule of law highlights this difficulty. It is not just a matter of punishing behavior, but of establishing the facts, protecting people, respecting everyone’s rights, and applying rules that are easy to understand. When content circulates beyond the school, responses can seem slow or incomplete to students and families, even when staff are trying to take action.
The situation also requires responsibilities to be distinguished. A high school can intervene in certain behaviors that affect school life, but it does not have the capabilities of a platform, an investigative service, or a court. Conversely, the digital nature of an act does not automatically exempt it from the law. The challenge is to coordinate these different levels without confusing their roles.
Digital incidents with very real consequences
A video posted without consent, a threat sent in a conversation, or a doctored photograph can have lasting effects on the person targeted. The visibility and repeated circulation of content can sometimes heighten isolation, fear, or pressure from a group. A screen does not make actions consequence-free: on the contrary, it can expand their audience and prolong their impact.
The way platforms work contributes to this amplification. Notifications, forwards, and recommendations encourage content to spread quickly, while it is difficult to guarantee its complete removal. Even when a post disappears from its original location, screenshots or copies may continue to circulate.
The difficulty of gathering evidence
For families and school staff, preserving verifiable evidence can be an important first step. Screenshots, links, and dates can help document an exchange, but they are not necessarily enough to establish its context or the identity of the person who shared it. A thorough investigation must take these limitations into account and avoid treating an accusation as fact before it has been verified.
The speed of digital exchanges is at odds with procedures that require time and verification. Students, meanwhile, often expect an immediate response, especially when content remains visible or comments keep multiplying. Between the urgency of protecting someone and the need to establish the facts, schools face several demands at once.
The role of platforms and the limits of moderation
The companies that operate social media determine many of the practical rules governing how content circulates: they define reporting tools, moderation criteria, and appeal procedures. These decisions can directly affect how visible a post is or whether it can be taken down. Yet their rationale and procedures are often difficult for users to understand.
The French debate surrounding the X network illustrates tensions between freedom of expression, content moderation, and the enforcement of national rules. In a different context, the United States’ position on a French investigation targeting X highlights the potential disagreements between governments over how to protect freedom of expression and enforce the law. These international debates resonate in schools, where the right to express oneself, protection from harm, and the responsibility of different actors all intersect.
Moderation is not simply a matter of removing or keeping content. It raises questions of transparency: what criteria are applied, within what time frame, and how can someone challenge a decision? For a high school dealing with an urgent situation, a platform’s failure to respond quickly can make it harder to protect students. Conversely, an opaque or disputed decision can fuel a sense of arbitrariness.
Educating, protecting, and restoring shared points of reference
The response cannot rely solely on sanctions. Students need to understand how the tools they use work, how content can spread, and what consequences posting it can have. Media and digital literacy covers not only fact-checking, but also respect for privacy, consent, and the ability to recognize a situation involving harassment.
School staff also need clear procedures: who to send a report to, how to preserve useful evidence, when to involve families, and which people to contact when conduct appears to constitute an offense. Rules known in advance can reduce improvisation and reassure the students concerned, without prejudging the outcome of any particular situation.
Victim protection must remain at the center of any intervention. This means assessing risks, stopping the spread as far as possible, and avoiding making the person targeted repeat their account to numerous people. Responses must also uphold the protections owed to anyone accused and allow for an impartial examination of the facts.
A broader digital governance issue
The difficulties faced in high schools are part of a broader debate about the power of major platforms, the responsibility of technology companies, and the ability of states to establish common rules. Discussions around artificial intelligence also contribute to this reflection. For example, efforts to coordinate rules on artificial intelligence among Western countries illustrate the search for a shared framework in a sector where technologies and actors transcend national borders.
The business decisions of digital companies matter too, because they influence the services offered, their development, and the resources devoted to safety or moderation. The postponement of Anthropic’s stock market listing, discussed in this article on the artificial intelligence company’s ambitions, is a reminder that technology governance also evolves in step with industrial and financial strategies.
New financial uses of digital platforms and infrastructure further broaden these issues. The opening up of cryptocurrency markets to a large number of users, described in the article on the NYSE initiative, demonstrates how digital services are expanding into everyday life. These developments are not the same as the problems faced in high schools, but they are a reminder of just how closely usage, commercial interests, and regulation are now intertwined.
Digital debates shaped by political power dynamics
The circulation of information online is also linked to relations between states and political strategies. Positions on freedom of expression, regulation, and the role of platforms can vary according to country and context. International alliances and rivalries influence debates on digital standards, as also illustrated by the news coverage of the international commitments made by a Colombian candidate backed by Donald Trump.
For high schools, these seemingly distant debates have a concrete impact: the tools students use are often operated by international companies, while protection obligations and applicable rules are established within national frameworks. This overlap makes cooperation essential among schools, families, public authorities, and platforms, especially when content spreads beyond a school community.
The phrase Fabrice Epelboin used on RMC thus points to a perceived gap between the speed of social networks and that of the institutions responsible for enforcing rules. In high schools, this gap is measured by the ability to protect students quickly, verify the facts, and involve the right party, whether that is the school, the platform, or the competent authorities.
