Is a social media ban for teens the answer?

A month after Australia’s social media ban for kids under 16 took effect, debates have reignited over the effectiveness of such a sweeping measure in keeping children safe online. Almost five million social media accounts belonging to Australian teenagers have been deactivated or removed, according to the government. This announcement was the first metric since the laws’ rollout, which is “being closely watched by several other countries” weighing whether the regulation can be a “blueprint for protecting children from the harms of social media, or a cautionary tale highlighting the challenges of such attempts,” said The New York Times. The measure has sparked debate among both supporters and critics of laws banning teens from social media.

‘Not for a 12-year-old to fix’

If there is anything “more ridiculous than taking a corporate failure and throwing it to the individual to solve, by self-discipline reinforced by legislation,” it is “doing so to under-16s,” Zoe Williams said at The Guardian. If a corporation is “selling radical misogyny and methods for self-harm,” that is “not for a 12-year-old to fix by turning off their phone and taking up crochet.” Nor is it for parents to fix. You could “make the case for government intervention,” but only if it had “time on its hands after tackling the problem at source.”

Young people are “unarguably the target of so much manipulative content,” but to discuss online risks without mentioning adults is “frankly perverse,” Williams said. Between “Gen X miscreants and hyper-credulous boomers,” there are “generations that pose a greater risk to, and are themselves at risk from, the informational ecosystem.” Politicians need to “work out how to deal with them.”

As long as adults cannot “tear ourselves away from Slack, Instagram or gossipy group texts,” the rules that we “socially dictate for our children will be compromised and incomplete,” Jay Caspian Kang said at The New Yorker. Envisioning a “better digital life” should not “just focus on children,” but also on “workplaces and adult social norms.” Everyone needs to “put down the phones and make efforts to move the public square away from private technology companies that incentivize cheap engagement.”

On its own, a social media ban for kids “risks being a blunt tool,” therapist Laura Gwilt said at Huff Post. Children are “developmentally curious and highly socially motivated,” and without “parallel changes in parenting practices and wider cultural norms,” bans can “simply push use underground rather than remove it.” For many young people, social media is “already embedded in how they relate to peers,” so an “abrupt removal could be difficult for some to adapt to without careful scaffolding and adult support.”

Parents can ‘only do so much’

Australia’s approach to protecting children from the dangers of social media “may seem ham-fisted to critics,” but it “sure beats what some elected leaders in D.C. are doing,” which is “slightly north of nothing,” Kathleen Parker said at The Washington Post. Given how the public feels about online safety, it is a “wonder Republicans aren’t galloping en masse to the White House for the president’s signature” on the proposed Kids Online Safety Act. Tragically, “more children may die because of their dereliction of duty — to care.”

Australia’s social media ban is “an incredibly bold, life-affirming move” that you can only imagine tech companies fought hard against, Robin Abcarian said at the Los Angeles Times. This generation of children is “unwittingly being used as lab rats for the effects of technology on the brain.” Meanwhile, despite “protestations to the contrary,” social media companies are “craven when it comes to the safety of minors.” While parents “bear some of the responsibility for out-of-control social media use of their kids,” they can “only do so much.”

“We need to be looking at this as a public health issue,” California Assemblymember Josh Lowenthal (D-Long Beach) said to the Los Angeles Daily News after visiting Australia to talk to lawmakers about the ban. Youth mental health is in “an awful state right now.” Many young people “don’t feel good about themselves, so it’s yielding awful, anti-social outcomes,” he added. “We’ve got to right this ship.”