Rethinking social media access for the young

(Part 1)

For several months, a significant number of young people in Australia have been (on paper at least) subjected to a fate that most people in the Philippines cannot imagine: a world without social media (including YouTube).

The social media ban for those under 16 years old in Australia, a product of an amendment to the Online Safety Act 2021 known as the Social Media Minimum Age Act (SMMA), came into effect in December of last year. The legislative ban, one of the first and most sweeping of its kind, is viewed with interest by many nations as they grapple with the issue of how to protect young people from the emergent harms brought about by over-exposure to unregulated social media. The law comes about as a result of studies regarding the effect of social media on the youth, and because of wide-spread and multi-partisan support for the imposition of a minimum age on the use of social media.

It is not hard to see why. The Australian ban came about as the result of several studies, such as those of Jonathan Haidt, the author of the book “The Anxious Generation.” Haidt’s book dealt with the supposed harmful effects that were experienced by those that grew up with social media and ubiquitous online access. Many of these harms are allegedly the direct result of tech companies exploiting the vulnerabilities and taking advantage of the characteristics of the underdeveloped brains of the young, hooking them with reward-driven strategies that increase engagement while undermining their mental well-being.

Danielle Einstein, a clinical psychologist who supports Australia’s ban, says that social media makes children “feel as if they are constantly at a party” – or should be, for if not they risk missing out on something good. But the world of social media does not necessarily incentivize content that is positive or healthy; rather, they are designed to amplify what grabs the most attention, the most views and that is usually content that tends towards the shocking or extreme, turning into what the psychologist calls an “economy of anxiety.”

It is hard to argue against the position that ubiquitous social media use has given rise to harmful habits. A few of those that are problematic are the reliance on social media for news (collated by hidden algorithms from opaque sources); the expectation that communication and feedback must be immediate, that everyone must be reachable at all times, for work or play; the conflation of prestige with anonymous likes and comments; the sacrifice of privacy on the altar of convenience and peer competition.

But more than specific issues, the sheer power exerted by social media over vast numbers of the population is undeniable, and that in and of itself makes it a matter of public concern – and as such, a proper subject for government attention. This is not something that social media platforms and tech companies want to hear, but it is becoming a clarion call across the globe. We have seen sufficient evidence, both here and abroad, of the internet in general and social media in particular being deployed and weaponized for propaganda, misinformation and harassment. We have seen how easy it is for even a child to expose themselves inadvertently to harmful or age-inappropriate content.

It is immaterial that many of these companies did not intend for their products to be used in the ways that they are currently being used. Their pervasiveness and the ease by which they can be misused and abused call for regulation by a party not invested in their continued growth and financial viability. While there is some benefit to voluntary self-policing, the sheer scale and potential for harm of social media mandate the involvement of the State on behalf of the public.

We have also seen many instances where social media platforms take on roles practically similar to those of regulated media, such as when they handle (or mishandle) personal data of citizens, or when they make editorial decisions concerning what content they allow as speech or expression on their platforms, or when these companies provide advertisers access to these citizens in exchange for compensation. It is hardly fair for social media and streaming media platforms to perform functions and receive benefits similar to those of television, or billboards, and not be similarly subject to regulation.

Once it has been established that these companies, that this slice of virtual space, can and should be regulated, the issue then becomes how best to do so, particularly when it comes to young people. Australia believes it has found the answer in a total ban for those under 16 on named, major platforms. France has a ‘digital majority’ age for social media set at 15, before which parental consent is needed. In China, there are strict restrictions on usage for minors, as well as a curfew from 10 p.m. to 6 a.m. Many other nations are considering similar legislation, including the Philippines, where House Bill 8262 was recently filed, which would similarly ban minors under 16 from social media.

But while blanket prohibitions are a simple, easily understood solution, is it the best way to protect our youth? There has been a mixed reaction to the Australian bill, and many in opposition are young people who believe that they are being unfairly excluded from one of their primary means of connection and social interaction, as well as from the general political discourse. And even putting aside issues of the wisdom of these bans, are they even feasible to implement, given the current state of communications technology? But if not the bans, what can be done – for surely, the current status quo is untenable.

For my column next month, I plan to discuss my perspective on these questions in more detail.