A social media ban for under 16s sends the wrong message and won’t work, but rushing it for the end of the year is somehow worse.
I’ve thought long and hard about how I would write something like this, and I feel it has to begin with the person kicking it all off.
Pen to paper, I write:
“Dear Prime Minister Albanese, I hope you’re well.
“As someone who loves technology and thinks that a party that understands the plight of people and champions science above all, it probably comes as no surprise to find I’ve voted for you previously.
“I had hoped you would usher in change. That you would be a breath of fresh air from the non-stop seemingly money-obsessed governments of the past, which clearly haven’t understand science, technology, climate and weather, the rights of the many, and really anything else that doesn’t involve religion or money. They get that last part, but just about nothing else.”
I take a deep sigh and breathe in for the next part.
“So you can imagine my shock, almost my horror, when I found your government is championing a social media ban for under 16s. And worse, that you’re rushing it.
“One of these is a bad idea. The other is actually worse.”
For those playing along at home, the bad idea is a social media ban for under 16s, while the worse idea is trying to implement it at speed by the end of the year, before it has had time to be discussed, argued, debated, picked apart, rewritten, discussed some more, and turn out in a way where an aspect of it could work, as opposed to being yet another nonsensical political promise with no gravitas.
I stop because I’m not sure Albo would understand which is worse or even why. I’m not even sure why I’m writing this letter. Thankfully, it’ll be an article, and knowing my luck, an article the Prime Minister won’t read.
And that’s fine: you’re reading it, which matters.
By reading this, we — as writer and reader — are already appearing to have a more thorough discussion about the social media ban and its inability to roll out at speed than it seems the entire Australian government. It is trying to push out a flawed technological execution without thinking whether it could work, or whether something else would be better in its place.
The ban primarily targets the big social media networks, covering Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, and X, but the wording could also mean anything is also a social network. YouTube, for instance, and possibly Xbox, Roblox, and maybe even other gaming services. The sort of things kids and teens actually use.
How deep does the rabbit hole go? We’ll know later on, but there’s a good chance it’ll be fairly blanketed to make life easier for the government. Messaging services will apparently be left out, the likes of which would include Facebook Messenger, WhatsApp, and Snapchat, even though the latter has seen blackmailing scams lead to the unimaginable for parents.
“I’ve spoken to thousands of parents, grandparents, aunties and uncles. They, like me, are worried sick about the safety of our kids online. And I want Australian parents and families to know that the Government has your back,” said the Prime Minister at a press conference launching the plan in early November.
“Parents will welcome the government becoming their ally in the battle to stop immature and impressionable youngsters from going on social media,” wrote the AFR collectively on the matter, noting that the ban could potentially assist with cyberbullying and give kids under a certain age time to deal with emotional development and maturity. That’s fair. There have been some pretty heartbreaking stories.
The problem is the ban is deeply flawed.
Initially introduced by the South Australian government, the ban doesn’t exist to solve the problem of social for people who aren’t equipped for it, only to cover it up.
It’s a handy way for people to bury their heads in the sand when the better approach would be to learn. To learn with their kids, together, and to build on those experiences with one another. To learn from people experienced in it like you would anything else.
The ban is totally unenforceable, and neither parents nor kids will be penalised for going around the ban, raising the question of why or how it would even be useful in the first place.
“There would be no penalties for users who managed to access social media under the age of 16” wrote Josh Butler and Josh Taylor for The Guardian. The article notes that the lack of penalties would apply regardless of whether the access came through kids or parents, though the government’s Michelle Rowland said penalties would apply for the platforms.
Rather, it seems like this ban is a way to place the blame at someone’s feet. Throw it to the social media companies, because they’re the ones getting rich off the platform. And sure, that makes some sense.
Except, of course, it also misses the point that the ban won’t help kids or teens adapt to an important medium during a time when they should be learning and growing with it.
It’s distinct to the government plan to target scams by making banks, telcos, and social media platforms do due diligence when scams are reported, lest they want to find themselves on the end of a hefty fine. That’s a policy that targets the people in a position to do something, versus the people using the services.
The government scam plan is a win for consumers because these companies don’t always investigate scams when they’re reported, and this will force them to try.
However, the social media ban for under 16s is different. It seems to exist to get votes when it should be a conversation.
Worse, this newly expedited timeline seems to exist to garner public sentiment ahead of an election next year, when it should clearly be thought out, explored, discussed, and prodded. Conversed. Argued. Poked. Prodded. Talked. Argued. Harangued. Prodded some more.
Expediting a timeline on an unenforceable concept that won’t even see penalties applied is a recipe for disaster, like rushing out a plan destined for disaster. Worse, the ban could actually put some young lives at risk.
It’s not as if the government’s ministers are experienced in digital rollouts or technological planning, either. Even if the idea was great (it’s not), with a little over one month until the end of the year, maybe taking the time to explore the problem and its potential answers would elicit the right result, rather than the rushed one.
Those in technology already know roughly what that answer is: education.
Education is the answer. Education is always the answer.
Education is the answer we have for scams, and education is also the answer we have for social media. You don’t have to be the most experienced social media guru to know how to use it, but you can still learn. You can learn about social engineering, about how best to use social platforms, and how to take messages with a grain of salt.
And we can use that knowledge to teach children and teens so they’re actually prepared when they start to use the services for real life, rather than simply blocking them from the action until they’re ready, hoping to hell they are by simple virtue and the good graces of emotional maturity.
I pick up the pen once again.
“I could go round for round to explain why both the social media ban and its rushed timeline are bad ideas, and I’ve already made a comment or two on radio. But as a parent, I think it’s the wrong path entirely.
“This will probably raise flags, but I won’t ban my kids from social media.
“You know what I will do? I’ll teach them how to use it. I’ll teach them how to deal with social and scams. Education is the answer. It always is.
“It’s a good thing this ban won’t be enforced, because I’ll be ignoring it.”
