Isolation or empowerment?

A five-year-old girl I know got her first real cellphone when she was just three years old. She was given the starter phone as a birthday gift because she kept borrowing her grandmother’s cellphone to watch animation videos.

The girl used her cellphone extensively when she was still in a government-run playschool, during rainy days when the school had to shift to remote learning. Now in kindergarten in a private school, she may soon beg for a mid-range phone.

That’s right, folks, they’re using cellphones for online classes as early as kiddie school. Of course the girl is assisted by her mother during online classes. Still, now that the girl is in kindergarten, she’s on her way to digital independence from adults for off-classroom learning.

Her digital savvy is certain to expand exponentially as she learns to read and write.

The girl’s sister, going on three, is also familiar with the uses of cellphones and tablets for her cartoon viewing pleasure, although she still can’t handle any controls, since she hasn’t started schooling yet.

Both are used to talking with other people by video call. Both, it seems, are also heavily influenced by the images they see on TV of their favorite YouTube videos of princesses and the animation versions of K-pop monster hit “Golden” by Huntrix, which feature impressive dancing and singing skills by girls with Barbie-slim bodies. Both girls also like frilly, flouncy clothes like those worn in animation hit “Frozen.”

Because of such role models, the five-year-old, who was so chubby as a baby she was called Buddha, has kept to a strict diet of age-appropriate growing-up milk and just enough roughage to keep her growing without regaining her baby fat.

Her sister, who has the cute plumpness of a three-year-old and has an appetite worthy of a lavish buffet spread, may soon follow the ate and go on a diet. At a certain age, it seems, they stop seeing baby fat as cute.

This is how impressionable kids are, and how powerful online and TV images can be in shaping the minds of children. Both girls can also speak and understand English well, despite their humble background and the fact that it’s not the language spoken at their home. They absorb the language spoken in their favorite shows online and on TV.

Digital technology is becoming an indispensable tool in children’s education. For teens, the technology may also be indispensable in many other aspects including earning a living. And while cyberspace facilitates bullying, many minors have become dependent on digital technology for social networking, which they also need for their mental wellness.

The Philippine Mental Health Association is one of several groups pushing for child empowerment rather than minors’ isolation from social media. Child welfare advocates say that even with the best intentions, regulators should go after the video formats rather than the content. They also want Big Tech to provide strong default privacy settings and ensure the speedy removal of harmful content from socmed.

*      *      *

As in any powerful tool, extreme care is needed in the use of socmed, to prevent it from causing harm.

This balancing act lies at the heart of global debates on whether social media access should be restricted for minors. Merely setting the age of restriction is contentious enough; whether the restrictions are enforceable is equally problematic.

In our case, our lawmakers are following the example of several countries. Australia banned social media access for minors under 16 beginning December last year, with platforms required to take steps to block the accounts.

In March this year, Brazil and Indonesia followed suit. Brazil requires age verification for under-16s, who must link their accounts to that of a legal guardian. Indonesians under 16 are blocked from so-called high-risk platforms, which include TikTok, YouTube and Instagram. Malaysia imposed a ban similar to Indonesia in June, while Turkey’s ban, passed in April and set for full implementation, covers those 15 and below.

China, with its Great Firewall, led the way, restricting minors’ access to socmed and streaming platforms as early as 2019, with full implementation by 2023.

The European Union is currently considering a socmed ban for under-13s and restricted and supervised access for under-15s. France has restricted access for under-15s, with Greece set to impose a ban for under-15s by Jan. 1, 2027. The UK is considering a ban for under-16s by early 2027, while New Zealand is eyeing a ban for under-16s.

*      *      *

Our lawmakers want to get tougher, probably in reaction to recent cases of armed violence in high schools wherein students fatally shot their schoolmates, with two of the gunmen then killing themselves.

Last week, the Senate passed a bill restricting social media access for under-18s – up from the initial plan to set the age limit at below 16. Senators said the Safe Media Access and Responsible Technology for Kids in Digital Spaces or SMART KIDS Act aims to ban minors’ access to “high-risk digital services” such as GoreBox and Roblox, but it would still allow minors to use socmed for education, livelihoods and networking. The bill, however, also prevents those covered from setting up socmed accounts.

Meanwhile, the House is eyeing a tiered ban, with the tightest restrictions set for under-13s and graduated restrictions for older minors.

The two chambers will still reconcile their versions. Education Secretary Sonny Angara, who has a son below age 16, is against a total ban on socmed access for minors.

If any restriction is imposed, adults should ensure that the measures will stay one step ahead of the children. The system for age verification must be credible.

For many of today’s kids, digital access is like air; deprivation can be suffocating. These digital natives will surely move to find a way to go around any socmed restriction.