Governments worldwide are reaching out to a crude tool to address a sophisticated issue- restricting children on social media. The sense of urgency is echoed by the fact that Australia is actuated to limit access to under-16s and like arguments in the UK and other countries. The harms are actual-cyberspace bullying, sexual exploitation, violent and misogynistic, the addictive design, and the radicalisation through algorithm. To the parents, teachers, and child rights activists, the dangers seem personal and direct.
History, psychology, and even the principles of child rights, all indicate that prohibition is not a sufficient measure of long-term protection. Rather, it will push the children into less controlled online areas and will leave the actual criminals and strong technological corporations unpunished.
The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child allow children the right to protection and information, participation, and development. Social media is not just entertainment and through this they learn, socialise, express themselves, and increase access to education and civic participation.
Blanket bans just consider children as passive victims, but never as rights-holders with changing capacities. They suppose that being excluded is being safe. Online spaces are lifelines to many teens, and this is particularly so with those who are already marginalised as they find peer support, explore their identity and get unobtainable information offline.
The proponents of strict age prohibitions usually compare it to smoking, gambling, drinking, or driving. Such age limits have minimised injury. The move by the UK to increase the age at which people smoke to 18 years resulted in a major decline among young smokers. And why not social media?
Social media is a structure which defines education, communication, culture and democracy. In addition, the age restriction can only be effective when the implementation is plausible and there is responsibility to the suppliers. Currently, the age limits are more symbolic. They are constantly circumvented by children, and platforms persist in making off with the content with relative impunity.
In the absence of powerful implementation mechanisms and sanctions against companies, sanctions run the risk of being performative, putting families and children in the spotlight as Big Tech proceeds with its operations as usual.
There is one unpleasant fact that lies behind this argument: it is easier to prohibit than to control billion-dollar companies.
Companies in social media make colossal profits by grabbing attention, promoting extreme content and commercialising their interaction, at the cost of the wellbeing of children. Dangerous content is not a coincidence; rather, it is much more often the result of algorithmic designs which are optimized to maximise revenue.
However, governments tend to limit the users instead of punishing the provider and thus they opt to do so instead of reaching into their pockets.
If child safety is taken seriously, bans should be accompanied by very serious sanctions: heavy fines, liability for damage, independent audits, and enforceable safety-by-design requirements. Social media should be made illegal to delete acted out content, take prompt action on abuse and reformulate algorithms that propagate harm. Moderation practices and sources of funding should not be mentioned, but they should be.
Digital literacy also represents another gap in the ban-first approach.
The digital world is here to stay where children are growing in an adult world. Protecting them until they reach a predetermined age does not make them prepared to face dangers once they can be accessed. Education to the children, parents and educators about how children can recognise misinformation, resist the harmful content, control their privacy, and seek help is more sustainable than denial.
A more calibrated solution may limit the access of younger children, especially in the primary school age group- as the number of digital freedoms is incrementally raised along with education and protective measures. By making the harmful sites inconvenient, but not unavailable, the harm may be minimised without the backlash impact of banning them completely.
It is commonly presented as a black and white option in this debate: either prohibit social media or leave children with Big Tech. That is a false choice.
Age limits would potentially contribute, but not silver bullets. When applied in isolation, they exert the risk of concealing system failures on the one hand and providing governments with an illusion of control on the other.
The move by Australia has been applauded as a bold leadership. Perhaps it is. However, leadership is more than prohibited. It is challenging corporate interests, insists on transparency and long-term solutions instead of short-term political victories.
The quickest means of seeming to defend children can be banned. The best form of protection is more difficult: controlling technology, creating responsibility, and educating the youth to be wise in the cyber world.
Children need better than mere protection. They are ready to have a digital future that has their rights, dignity, and well being as central themes.
The writer is the Protection Specialist and CEO, Favor Consultancy
