Will A Social Media BAN Solve The Teen Mental Health Crisis?
My Thoughts May Surprise You...
Last week, Australia announced that it is proposing a social media ban on under-16’s. If passed, it would be a world leading move.
The proposed legislation would place the onus on tech platforms to age-verify accounts, but would not punish those who do not comply.
It’s worth mentioning that many other places have proposed versions of a social media ban- France, the UK, and various states in the US have all put forth legislation to mitigate the harms of social media on kids. To date, none have come to fruition, either due to technical holdups or pushback by tech lobbyists.
I’ve thought about the pros and cons of a social media ban for some time now. Let me break down my pros and cons (or maybe ‘questions’ is a better way to say it) list.
PROS
Bans have worked in the past. If we think about alcohol, cigarettes, or minimum driving ages- they work. They reduce death, and many more people comply than they otherwise would pre-ban.
They bring much-needed attention to the issue. Even if a child or parent doesn’t comply with the ban, it’s likely to make them think twice, and maybe look into the research about why it’s happening.
Social media really isn’t for kids. As it is today, I think there is very little benefit to kids having social media prior to age 16. They’re inundated with age-inappropriate content, sexual harassment, predation, and the time spent is taking them away from other important pillars of health. The only reason every kids wants on, is because ‘everyone else is on’. A ban would change that.
It would take the onus off of parents to be the ‘bad guy’. Even for parents who hold firm on delaying their child’s access, it often comes with a great degree of guilt. This would allow parents to punt responsibility to the government.
CONS
It doesn’t solve the content issues. Age-banning may see less kids on social media apps, but still leaves the addictive features and harmful content waiting after 16, or for those who don’t comply. In a sense, it lets the tech giants off easy because they aren’t forced to make their platforms inherently safer.
How will age verification work? If the onus is on tech companies to enforce, I’m skeptical at how well kids will actually be prevented from gaining access. Right now the platforms are mostly 13+, but we all know that’s not being verified. Even Instagram’s new ‘Teen Accounts’ had no solid plan for age verification. But maybe legislation will force that issue…
There is a small minority of kids who benefit from social media. I want to be clear I think it’s absolute garbage for most kids’ brains. Even most ‘positive content’ can be found outside of the apps. But let’s consider one example- the gay kid who lives in a rural town and has no one who understands him/her, and makes connections online that lead to real-world friendships. With proper boundaries, it is possible to be neutral or even positive for some kids.
Final Thoughts
I think, overall, a ban has the ability to help. But I do not think it’s a close-the-book solution. There could be a false sense of security, that everything will be ok now. But education, awareness, conversations at home and tech boundaries will still be important.
Ultimately, I think the most impactful legislation would be to ban the addictive features of their platforms. Ban algorithmically-generated content. Ban infinite scroll. Ban content that is clearly harmful.
A step further may include legislated time limits on apps (China does this with its Douyin app)
This will do two things- help kids, but also help their parents who are often just as addicted as them, leading to more meaningful real-life interactions.
I’d love to hear your thoughts in the comments!
If social media is so bad, then perhaps we should declare a state of emergency and "quarantine" all such platforms for all ages for "just two weeks" (right). And also have a smartphone buyback program like they do for guns. Then once the spell is broken, then We the People can decide collectively whether to go back to either.
Such bans I believe will do more harm than good on balance. At best they only kick the can further down the road, hiding it in the future, and it goes downhill from there. The privacy and cybersecurity pitfalls of mandatory age verification (or at least any kind that has any real teeth at all) are very real and will ultimately hurt everyone, backfiring on adults too.
Do not think it will stop at 16 or whatever other arbitrary age limit they choose either. This is merely the very first of many dominoes to fall.
And it's NOT merely a tiny minority of teens who benefits from social media while the majority is harmed: as renowned sociologist Mike Males points out, it's exactly the reverse. The few who are harmed merit individual attention (focused protection), not broadstroke bans that throw the proverbial baby out with the bathwater.
I agree that we need to make it safer for all ages, albeit with the caveat that we would still need to comply with the Bill of Rights (USA) and Charter of Rights and Freedoms (Canada). We need comprehensive data privacy legislation for all ages, as the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) points out. We need to ban surveillance advertising. We need to regulate the algorithms better, and get rid of blatantly and deliberately addictive features. As for content, there are of course limits to what would would be constitutional in terms of bans, so outright censorship would probably not be a good idea. But there are still ways of making it safer regardless.
And finally, we adults, especially us Elder Millennials, all need to stop treating young people as though they are less than fully human, stop abusing and degrading them in any way, and allow them at LEAST as much freedom in the offline world as previous generations enjoyed. Teens Teens don't need more restrictions than they already have, if anything, they need far less.
(Mic drop)