Social media has altered how we interact with friends and relatives, provided raw news coverage from every corner of the globe directly to our smartphones, and exposed us to an endless stream of feline-themed humor. While certain aspects have had beneficial effects, others haven’t, and many remain under scrutiny. However, as the initial cohort raised entirely within the digital age begins parenting their offspring, worries over technology’s influence on kids are mounting. This apprehension led Australia to pass legislation In November prohibiting under-16s from accessing social media.
“There’s so much going on simultaneously,” explains Sonia Livingstone, a professor of social psychology at the London School of Economics and an expert on children and social media. "Clearly, numerous parents at home are silently grappling with issues related to social media and feel they lack support. A smaller group of these parents—those whose children have suffered greatly or even passed away—are becoming more active. Additionally, some politicians are concerned about complaints within their districts and seek positive headlines during tough periods. Meanwhile, major technology companies continue expanding without sufficient regulatory oversight." This confluence of events makes discussions around banning social media use among those under 16 appear like a potential solution, according to her.
The UK government finds itself in a complicated situation: Peter Kyle, the tech secretary, stated in November that a prohibition was being considered, but he later clarified this position. Guardian it was “not on the cards” For now, in January, he stated: "I haven't got any intentions to prohibit social media usage for those under 16."
Although the UK government appears to be leaning towards not implementing a ban, several prominent figures have expressed their backing. Bill Gates, co-founder of Microsoft, commented on Australia’s ban stating, "It might well be a wise move." Meanwhile, the UK’s top official in charge of counter-terrorism police mentioned that such a prohibition deserves careful consideration. Additionally, Chris Philp, who serves as the shadow home secretary, indicated his general approval of a ban but suggested that the minimum age threshold should possibly be below 16 years old.
"There's an immense level of conflict and uncertainty globally," states Livingstone. "Social media appears like a solvable issue." However, is restricting access the solution?
What could be the mechanism behind social media bans? The new Australian law indicates that social media platforms must implement "reasonable measures" to ensure individuals under 16 cannot create accounts once the legislation takes effect in December this year.
In practical terms, this concept isn't entirely defined yet. However, an explanatory memo proposed implementing "age verification" technologies at a basic level, potentially using methods like facial recognition and age prediction algorithms. These tools are frequently presented as solutions for determining someone's age accurately; however, they remain estimates—ones that could still be incorrect. On average, such systems' predictions about a person's age tend to differ from reality by anywhere from one to three years. While this discrepancy might not matter much for a 45-year-old individual, it becomes significant for an 18-year-old college student who gets flagged incorrectly by the system and thus barred from joining social media platforms alongside peers at university. This situation would undoubtedly be annoying.
Could a prohibition like that really be effective? A recent survey conducted by More In Common revealed that three-quarters of the public Would endorse prohibiting social media usage for those under 16 years old, an increase from the present minimum age requirement of 13. Numerous individuals, primarily exasperated parents trying hard to protect their kids online safety, would back this move. "Children below 16 should have absolutely no involvement with social media," asserts Vicky Borman, a parent of three offspring, one being younger than 16. She argues that such young users encounter various inappropriate materials like explicit content, pornographic imagery, instances of bullying, and harassment—things they're not prepared to deal with."
Like numerous other parents, Borman supports implementing a ban. She states, "It's high time we restore childhood for our children, making sure they can form enduring memories without being glued to screens."
Even those who are most vocal about seeking action generally do not think that completely prohibiting children from using social media is the solution. Andy Burrows serves as the CEO of the Molly Rose Foundation, established by the family of Molly Russell, a 14-year-old. who ended their own life Following an onslaught of negative experiences on social media, he states, "The truth is that closing off access to these platforms wouldn't make problematic individuals vanish. Instead, they'd likely shift their focus to gaming and messaging apps, potentially leading to overwhelming levels of harmful content across those channels."
Sonia Livingstone also expresses reservations. "A prohibition sounds good as a headline and appears simple, yet it’s not," she remarks. "The intent of such an action is to prevent tech firms from offering harmful items to kids, but it swiftly turns into preventing children from using technology altogether."
What safeguards are currently in place, and how effective are these considered to be? Currently, there are safeguards designed for young social media users—many implemented and maintained by the platforms themselves—which include requirements like being at least 13 years old. "However, these measures aren’t particularly clear-cut or reliable," according to Livingstone. Most firms flag accounts believed to belong to minors under 13 and apply safety settings such as restricting messaging capabilities and limiting exposure to certain types of content. Yet, their effectiveness remains questionable, notes Livingstone, who frequently interacts with kids through her studies. The children she speaks with report continuing to get messages from adults despite these precautions.
"There are certain safeguards, yet they fall short," states Livingstone. "Until the UK's Online Safety Act and the EU's Digital Services Act come into effect, we remain far from achieving the kind of robust algorithmic protections that everyone desires." (Although these laws have been enacted, regulatory bodies like Ofcom in the UK will take several more months before beginning enforcement actions.)
Burrows concurs with this assessment regarding the situation in the UK: "It is imperative that the Prime Minister swiftly prioritize, enhance, and refine the Online Safety Act to ensure it functions considerably better when safeguarding children," he asserts.
What proof exists that using social media before age 16 can be detrimental? If you peruse the book by American social scientist Jonathan Haidt, The Anxious Generation -- which has been ongoing New York Times bestseller list for 46 weeks – there is a lot of evidence that it is harmful. The book is a compelling manifesto warning about the polluting impact of social media and tech on our teenagers’ minds.
We understand that outright prohibitions usually fail and often get bypassed by teenagers, yet we still believe they're the correct course of action.
Prof Pete Etchells, Bath Spa University
Yet, one statistician argues Many of the studies that Haidt depends on are misinterpreted, with some actually opposing his arguments. The writer acknowledges this. two minor errors On his website, while a psychology professor has accused Haidt Regarding "creating narratives just by examining trends," he added that his findings were "unsupported by scientific evidence." Haidt says that his critics have misunderstood his assertions, including applying an incorrect burden of evidence.
One critique of the book is that Haidt may have conflated correlation with causation. However, his main point resonates strongly with numerous parents’ worries and personal observations. There is broad agreement regarding the adolescent mental health crisis. Moreover, adults themselves often experience the compelling allure of their smartphones. When tackling everyday challenges like regulating kids' smartphone usage and engagement with social media, discussions around cause-and-effect might seem overly theoretical to concerned parents.
What constitutes social media? The major query troubling individuals researching this topic is this one. Professor Pete Etchells from Bath Spa University, an author and psychology lecturer, points out, "Currently, we lack precise definitions for what lawmakers refer to when they mention social media." Unlocked Does having two people chat with each other via WhatsApp classify as engaging in social media activities? How about adding a third participant into the conversation? Furthermore, would utilizing the status feature on WhatsApp also qualify these interactions as part of social media use?
Even Australia hasn’t agreed upon a formal definition yet. After passing its regulations in November, the specifics regarding which companies would be impacted were left unclear. However, the nation’s communications minister, Michelle Rowland, indicated that platforms like Snapchat, TikTok, X, Instagram, Reddit, and Facebook likely fall within these guidelines.
What does the current evidence show from Australia and other locations that have implemented such bans? Australia stands out as the most prominent nation to implement restrictions, though its prohibition hasn’t taken effect just yet. Since comprehensive prohibitions lack supporting evidence, we must depend on information derived from limited measures or hypothetical scenarios, like restricting technology use in educational settings or during particular times of the day. recent study published in the Lancet Of over 1,200 secondary school students studied, there wasn’t much variation in mental well-being between those from schools with strict mobile phone restrictions and those without such policies. The researchers suggested this occurred because these bans didn't influence overall cell phone usage. Nonetheless, the research indicated: "Increased screen time via phones/social media correlates strongly with poorer mental health, decreased physical activity, disrupted sleep patterns, lower academic performance, and heightened instances of misbehavior."
From what we understand informally, extremely strict, universal prohibitions often prove ineffective, usually being bypassed by teenagers. feel "As they seem like the appropriate course of action," states Etchells. "South Korea’sshutdownlaw servesas agoodillustrationofthis."In2011,thecountryimplementedaruleprohibitingchildrenundertheageofsixteenfromplayingvideogamesbetweenmidnightand6a.m.inanattempttoaddressconcernsaboutvideoaddiction.Thelawwaseventuallyrepealedafteradeacadasitdidnothaveitsdesiredimpact,withincidentsoffraudincreasingastheyoungstersfoundwaystogetaroundtherestrictions.
Are some of the manifestations of big tech cosying up to Donald Trump in the US – from downsizing moderation teams to cancelling factchecking initiatives – focusing the calls for bans? During Joe Biden’s presidency, says Livingstone, “there was a sense that trust and safety teams were building up. The regulation was coming, being consulted on and under way”. But recent attacks by the Trump campaign against NCMEC, the National Center for Missing & Exploited Children, a US nonprofit that is government funded, worry experts. NCMEC stops the spread of images of child abuse, and has had its funding threatened Overall, many worry this paints a grim scenario that could lead to increased demands for simplistic solutions like outright prohibitions instead of more sophisticated approaches capable of bringing meaningful change. "Experts in child online protection are concerned about whether regulatory bodies are prepared to confront major technology companies," states Livingstone. "At present, it’s challenging to assure children, parents, and the general public that social media platforms will become safer over the next year."
Post a Comment