I have a lot of sympathy for the recent social media ban for under 16s in Australia.
Or, to be more specific, I have a great deal of sympathy for the intent behind the ban. As I have written here and here , I have serious concerns with what social media (and the internet itself) is doing to our families, society and ourselves.
Upon the enforcement of the ban on the 10th of December last year, the Prime Minister addressed those under-16s that would be affected, encouraging them to substitute their social media use with learning an instrument, playing a sport, or reading a book. This is (a rarity for politicians) an unequivocally good message to come from our Prime Minister.
I want this ban to work. Actually, I want this social media ban for under-16s to become a launch pad for a national conversation about our relationship with digital technologies, not just for under-16s but for all of us.
Yet, with the government’s ban having been enforced for over six months, enough time has passed to assess the effectiveness of this new legislation.
The signs are not encouraging.
Observational studies suggest that around 80% of under 16s continue to access banned social media apps and websites. Anecdotally, my own experience in the classroom, confirms this limited early impact of the ban with social media apps and websites continuing to cause headaches for school administrators and management.
Moreover, the social media ban places the responsibility for its enforcement with the social media companies themselves. This, in my opinion, was always going to be a weakness of the of the legislation particularly as it needed to balance the privacy of users with accurately assessing their age.
So far, in the six months since the ban came into effect, no social media companies have been fined for failing to prohibit underage users. The Australian Government has responded by doubling the potential fine a company can face (an effort to that seems to exemplify the dog whose bark is far worse than their bite).
My fear is that, far from instigating a national conversation, the ban operates as little more than moral posturing from a government who would much rather be seen to be doing something than to actually do it.
In fairness, I will acknowledge that the ban faces its largest hurdle early as it seeks to remove children already habituated into social media. It is possible that it may see more traction with the up-coming generation who has not yet used social media and thus doesn’t know what it is missing.
In the meantime, the early difficulties of the social media ban serve to remind parents that they must occupy the driver’s seat when it comes to regulating social media (and digital technologies in general) in their own households.
Nor should this regulation be solely directed towards our children. Indeed, the far more difficult task is often the regulation of these insidious technologies in our own lives.
