| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="SecondEssay" |
|---|
New social media age-restriction laws: A blunt instrument?
-- By FatimaIsmail - 19 Dec 2024 |
|
<
< | *Introduction* |
>
> | Introduction |
| |
The harmful effects of social media, particular on teenagers is uncontroversial. The consequences of irresponsible use of these platforms on mental health has been widely publicised and is hailed as a leading justification by lawmakers globally for imposing obligations on social media companies to restrict the use of their services by minors. Over the past year, we have seen several jurisdictions introduce legislation with the aim of restricting the use by minors of social media. Although the application of these laws will in theory be beneficial to those they aim to protect, the question is whether they will achieve these desired outcomes in practice. |
|
<
< | Has social media reached its peak? |
>
> | Has social media reached its peak? |
| | The rate of growth of social media use is slowing down as compared to the annual rates recorded in the preceding 5 years. The decrease in the growth of social media and its use are largely due to the negative impact that social media has had on mental health. It is reported that 3 in 4 Gen Z social media users blame the state of their mental health on the use of such platforms, of which, 49% of Gen Z’s have reported feeling stressed and anxious after using social media platforms. The top reasons for respondents’ feelings of stress and anxiety following social media use are due to the consumption of upsetting content; feelings of unproductivity; and the fear of missing out.
The negative effects of social media use on teens’ well-being has led to Australia and Florida introducing laws to stem these effects. |
|
<
< | Measures to restrict use among teens |
>
> | Measures to restrict use among teens |
| |
Last month the Australian House of Representatives passed The Social Media Minimum Age Bill which will effectively ban children under the age of 16 from using social media platforms that require an account in order to be accessed, such as Facebook, Instagram and X. While the specifics of how the law will be implemented will be announced at a later stage, the government says it will rely on age-verification technology to administer the restriction and social media platforms will be required to implement their own measures. A violation of the law by children will not result in any penalties imposed on them, but tech companies who fail to take “reasonable steps” to prevent anyone under the age of 16 from accessing their platforms will face significant penalties of up to USD 32 million. |
| | |
|
<
< | A viable solution to the problem? |
>
> | A viable solution to the problem? |
| | The efficacy of these measures is yet to be seen, however there are a myriad of obvious enforceability issues in respect of these laws. In the case of Australia, tech researchers have cautioned that it is uncertain whether the verification technology will have the intended effect, particularly considering that VPN’s for example, are an easily accessible measure that could allow users to circumvent the restrictions as VPN’s disguise a user’s location and make it appear as if the user is logging in from another country. Had law-makers included tech experts in the law-making process, the bill might have had better practical effect (at least from a tech perspective). |
| | Notwithstanding this, these proposed solutions mean nothing if the Parasite with the Mind of God continues to have teens (including the rest of society) in its clutches. Without the internal will to change our use of social media, these measures are merely superficial. |
|
<
< | Conclusion |
>
> | Conclusion |
| |
While the adoption of laws in Australia and Florida are intended to protect the youth from the harmful effects of social media, in their current form, they are unlikely to have the intended effect. In order for these laws to lead to beneficial outcomes in practice, the focus ought to be – not on restricting use – but on increasing digital literacy among the youth. Ultimately, without the human will to change our habits and dependence on these platforms, the proposed laws are unlikely to achieve their stated goals. |
|
>
> |
Neither the essay nor the statutes under discussion have anything to say about "social media" beyond the name. This wiki, Wikipedia editing, citizen journalism, bird counting, collaborative software development using git, community arts exhibition, fan fiction creation, addiction recovery support—all are lumped together, as are "the youth." This is said to be a poor mode of public policy formation, even as it is replicated.
The best route to improvement is to restore the human author and the human reader to the process. You—an individual—are thinking. You frame a question, bring your question into the library, read some other peoples' ideas, develop your own, and communicate them to the reader. Abstraction is eschewed in favor of personal intellectual experience. The student (a word derived from the Latin for eagerness, or enthusiasm) shows eagerness, engagement, a desire to think and share thinking. Perhaps reading Sherry Turkle's Alone Together, a book I assigned, would help.
|
| |
|
|
<
< | * The Bill is being challenged over concerns regarding free speech. |