December 3, 2024
📰 FEATURE STORY
Should other countries replicate Australia’s social media ban?
What has social media given the world? It’s a complicated and wide-ranging question. On the one hand, it has given everyone a microphone and on the other, everyone now has a voice with minimal to no filter. Is it being used to impress people or make an impact? Is that impact positive or negative? Irrespective of the answers to these questions, social media has undeniably impacted the world, for better or worse.
Australia sees it as a net negative. It’s why the country passed a landmark first-of-its-kind law banning social media for kids under 16. The legislation was based on the increased recognition that it harms young people and their development. Should other countries follow suit?
Context
It’s fair to say people have a love/hate relationship with the internet. Its advantages to our daily lives are innumerable. But its dark side has been evident for a long time. The social and economic revolutions over the past few decades have been head-spinning for us to fully comprehend. The changes have made the developmental stages of life more challenging.
If we know the problem, what’s the solution? Regulating social media has proven difficult. The primary reason is something fundamental that all democracies have – freedom of speech. Can a government prohibit a platform where people can freely express their views? That’s the heart of it.
Digital technology has enabled progress on multiple fronts, including freedom of speech. But social media platforms have also accelerated and amplified false information, hate speech, and other harmful material, posing a risk to societal cohesion and stability.
Social media companies are key institutions in the 21st century. They’re a public sphere. What is social media’s public function? It’s a space where people express themselves. People get to decide what makes it function well or poorly. The thing about social media is that it isn’t like radio, television, or newspapers. Apart from the obvious, most people were consumers, not creators. Social media fundamentally changed that equation.
That means people as young as 12 or 13 can access the platforms. They consume and create content on them. It encompasses everything from sports to fashion to politics. Obviously, young people should be protected from harmful content. No one’s denying that. But how young is too young?
As far as Australia is concerned, 16 is the answer. The legislation was based on studies showing that the mental well-being of young Australians worsened as social media use became more widespread.
The ban compels social media companies to restrict access to anyone under 16. The primary targets are Facebook, X (formerly Twitter), TikTok, and Snapchat. YouTube was excluded due to its educational applications. Needless to say, the companies aren’t happy.
With the ever-increasing realisation of the importance of adolescent mental health, should other countries emulate Australia’s law?
VIEW: Bans should be considered
If something’s doing more harm than good, isn’t restricting access to it the right thing to do? Especially when young people are the most affected. Countries have laws to regulate alcohol and tobacco. Why not social media? It’s understandably trickier since there are free speech laws on the books. That doesn’t mean countries should outright ignore it, or worse, let the companies self-regulate. The platforms make money through engagement – the more time people spend on them, the richer the companies get.
There’s ample research showing how harmful these platforms are. Let’s take Australia, for example. The share of young people reporting declining mental health increased by 40% for males and 60% for females from 2007-10 to 2019-22. There could be multiple reasons for this, but the correlation between the smartphone generation and the widespread use of social media can’t be ignored as a strong one.
Apart from the mental health aspect, social media has played a net negative role in politics. It’s mostly a rules-free environment where rules, norms, and institutions don’t bind people. The rise of people like Donald Trump and Elon Musk has provided a pathway for personalities to influence the population, particularly youngsters.
Would the public support such a ban? According to a YouGov poll taken before the law passed, 77% of Australians support it. Australia is sending a signal to the world. The hope is that other countries will come to the same conclusions about the harmful effects of social media and implement similar laws. Australia is too small to take on the tech giants behind these platforms. A united front of multiple countries could push them into a corner.
COUNTERVIEW: Won’t do much good
The law received interesting reactions. It was a mix of relief and anger. Parents are probably relieved. Teenagers might ultimately find a way to keep using social media secretly. The latter is something Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese conceded. Social media is an integral part of growing up today, for better or worse. While young people are aware of the harm, they rely on it to find communities of like-minded people. That’s putting the next generation in a bad position.
The law might sound good on paper, but doesn’t solve anything. The harmful content won’t be removed. It’s just kicking the can down the road. In fact, if the goal is to take on Big Tech, then simply restricting access lets them off the hook. They won’t be held accountable in any meaningful way for the platform’s safety.
On implementation, it’s unclear. There will be workarounds since the type of age assurance that can be used isn’t mandated. Ultimately, the tech platforms will decide since they know the technology. For example, a VPN could be a workaround. Here comes another issue. What if new forms of access require government-issued IDs? This raises privacy concerns since social media companies would collect government data.
Ultimately, restricting access instead of regulating the content is the wrong approach. If young people can’t navigate social media until they’re 16, how will they do so once they can? Why not teach teenagers about digital resilience? Take Finland, for example. Its approach to digital literacy is comprehensive and embedded into the education systems. Students are introduced to digital tools, safety and technology to learn about responsible behaviour.
Reference Links:
- Why Is Australia Banning Social Media for Youth Under 16? – The Diplomat
- Social media can harm children’s mental health. The question now is whether a ban will help or make it worse – ABC News
- End the Phone-Based Childhood Now – The Atlantic
- Why banning social media for children wouldn’t save them from online harm – The Print
- The government has introduced laws for its social media ban. But key details are still missing – The Conversation
- Educating young people about social media would be far more effective than a ban – Finland can show us how – The Conversation
What is your opinion on this?
(Only subscribers can participate in polls)
a) Other countries should replicate Australia’s social media ban.
b) Other countries shouldn’t replicate Australia’s social media ban.
Previous poll’s results:
- Google’s businesses should be broken up: 43.1
- Google’s businesses shouldn’t be broken up: 56.9% 🏆
🕵️ BEYOND ECHO CHAMBERS
For the Right:
Exit the bulldozer, enter the survey
For the Left:
Ascendant Trumpism: Why Americans rejected hyper-liberalism