Rethinking social media access for the young

Last month, I wrote about Australia’s Social Media Minimum Age Act and the growing consensus that the dangers posed by social media to children merit at least the consideration of government regulation. The idea of banning minors from social media, completely, is one that many nations are entertaining; and it seems to be a measure growing in popularity among politicians.

It’s important to remember that social media is primarily a form of speech and expression and a ban on its access is, on its face, against our constitutionally mandated rights of freedom of speech and freedom of expression. In the United States and other constitutional democracies, the approach towards harmful speech has not been to suppress but expand. This is known as the counterspeech doctrine in American jurisprudence, where the remedy is seen as “more speech, not enforced silence.”

But there have been cases where “more speech” has been seen to be an ineffective solution, such as when dealing with “hate speech,” which has been found to have a silencing effect that inhibits counterspeech. In the case of social media, it’s become clear that these networks are an environment where simply allowing “more speech” will do little to protect the vulnerable from potentially harmful content. More speech as a remedy was effective decades ago, when communication was funneled through sources that were largely held to be trustworthy and legitimate, where it was easy to tell vetted news and expert views from mere guesses or false reports; an environment where misinformation could not be customized and targeted based on browsing history and where AI tools could not be repurposed into creating realistic photos or videos of events that did not occur.

In social media, there is a very low barrier for publishing and disseminating information, and the disparity in reach between viral content and platforms with established audiences is practically insurmountable. If a troll farm is deployed against a lone individual, allowing the individual the opportunity for “more speech” is unlikely to cure the harm done. In the current social media environment, “more speech” that minors would be exposed to is also likely to be more of the same harmful, false or inappropriate content that we would protect them from – and the algorithm would ensure that exposure to a few of these would lead to more sent their way.

Given the above, some regulation of speech or expression on social media would be justifiable and beneficial. Of the possible regulations, imposing a minimum age for social media use by minors could reduce exposure to toxic comparisons or unrealistic standards among peers, lessen opportunities for cyberbullying and help protect against harmful practices of adults such as grooming, data harvesting and exploitative dopamine-loop engagement patterns. At least, on paper.

Implementing such a ban would be incredibly difficult, given the decentralized and porous nature of much of the internet, particularly social media. While the Australian government claims that the ban is working, citing the suspension of more than four million accounts belonging to minors, many under-16s report that they can still access most social media sites. This is partly due to the ease by which they can circumvent age verification protocols, or the accessibility of VPNs. And of course, the ban only covers social media accounts – content is still mostly accessible if you simply do not log in.

Perhaps that is a blessing in disguise, as many believe that while the ban has some benefits, completely excluding minors from social media will do more harm than good. Social media can provide a much needed means of connection for young people, acting as a virtual support system, particularly for the isolated and the marginalized. They can be a vital means of education and information – note that the Australia ban covers YouTube, which was an essential resource during the pandemic. While there is inappropriate content on social media, completely denying youth access to it will lessen their opportunities to learn how to practically navigate it and acquire digital literacy. And if they do so anyway, without logging in, then they do so without the protection of parental controls and safety filters which can be built into accounts. As one of the opponents of the Australian law put it, you cannot empower young people by refusing their participation.

That does not mean that social media should not be regulated. We’ve already seen that its pervasiveness and power – for good or ill – make regulation necessary in order to properly direct this power for the good of the community and vulnerable individuals. Measures must be taken to make the experience of social media a healthier one for the young and the vulnerable. And the burden of implementing these must lie with those who most benefit from social media use – the platforms and providers.

A clear duty for public service, similar to the extraordinary diligence required of common carriers, must be explicitly imposed on social media platforms. To be allowed access to our citizens as users, such platforms must commit to putting the public welfare over profits, unlike other businesses. Services or spin-off versions must be created that take the needs of the young into account, or robust account verification and filtering systems put into place. Any content that purports to be news or informative in nature must be able to be clearly and easily traced to the initial source, and platform-based fact-checking must be rigorous and performed in regular sweeps. Inappropriate advertising, gambling and gamification should be strictly regulated and kept away from the youth. There must be clear guidelines with regard to hate speech and discrimination, and an active and human-led response.

Most importantly, the algorithms that these platforms use must be transparent, public and subject to regular human review, both internal and regulatory. The role of humans in the control, evaluation and selection of content that is viewable by and pushed to minors must be expanded. Algorithms and AI, while useful, cannot be held accountable for mistakes or offenses and as such, actual and identifiable humans must always have the final say. It is crucial that the ability of these platforms to unilaterally control the flow of content and information to our citizens must be done with human intentionality that can be reviewed, adjusted and, if need be, sanctioned.

Social media can be a powerful weapon against the youth and social media platforms must be held to a higher standard – or risk the decline of future generations.