Five problems Australia's U16 social media ban won’t help

Third in a series

This is the third in a series discussing the Australian legislation banning people under 16 from using social media. The previous posts are here and here

I’m writing from the perspective of a longstanding user of new media and also as someone with personal experience of dealing (not very successfully) with problems of under-16 screen addiction. On the other hand, I’m not a technical expert so I may get some details wrong. I’ll be happy to accept correction on these points

The problems

• Protecting teens from bullying. While online bullying takes place on message services associated with Facebook and similar, any kind of messaging will do, most obviously smartphone messaging. As an illustration, there was a recent furore about bullying based on the fact that Apple shows iOS messages as blue, and others as green. And of course, old-fashioned in-person bullying is still a thing

• Getting teens off their screens. In earlier discussion, some despairing parents expressed the hope that they would be able to use “it’s the law” to make kids turn off and go outside. But shutting off access to the big social media networks still leaves vast numbers of sites accessible and highly addictive (games, online TV, music video and of course porn). And even back in the days of rotary dial phones and broadcast TV, the problem of getting teens away from devices was a chronic complaint.

• Misinformation. The idea that “social media” misinform young people is a prime example of misinformation. The established media traffic in misinformation on a huge scale, partly to serve political agendas (most obvious with Murdoch) and partly because consumers like to have their prejudices and stereotypes reinforced (Frontline satirised this decades ago). And misinformation on topics like global heating are worst among old people, particular the old people who are keenest on “kid’s these days” stories

• Alcohol and drug use, irresponsible sexual behavior. The case for bans is largely based on correlations between the rise of social media and the prevalence of various bad outcomes for young people. But in some of the most important respects, today’s young people are more responsible than previous generations at the same age, or even today. It would be easy enough for the likes of Jonathan Haidt to make up a “just so story” in which teens are too busy looking at their phones to go out and get wasted. Such a story might even be true in some cases

• Political apathy. Since the bans are designed to cut young people out of social and political discussions of all kinds, it would be surprising if they didn’t increase political apathy and disengagement. Indeed, philosopher Peter Singer bizarrely canvasses the claim that “children under 16 do not vote and hence have less need for political communication. ” Given Singer’s general willingness to pursue arguments to logical, if unpopular, conclusions I’d have expected him to infer that children should have the right to vote, a position I’ve regularly advanced. His sloppiness here is disappointing.

There are some legitimate concerns about the impact social media on young people, such as the contribution of Instagram to body image problems. And there are huge problems with the big social media platforms in general. I’ll talk a bit about positive responses next time.

Follow me on Bluesky or Mastodon

Read my newsletter