November 29, 2024 - 2:00pm
Australiaâs parliament has just passed a law which aims to do what no other government has yet managed: stop children under 16 from using social media. The law, which will come into effect late next year, will rely on age-verification technology to impose the restrictions, and will make platforms liable for fines of up to ÂŁ25million if they do not stop children from creating accounts.
There are many thorny questions surrounding the new law. How will the age limit actually work and be enforced in practice? Will the ban simply send children to more unregulated spaces on the internet? How will the government deal with concerns around privacy and data? And has the bill been rushed through too quickly? Some have advised that the digital duty of care should fall to social media companies instead, or that the focus should be on education now that the online and offline worlds are so inextricable.
Interestingly, though, these oppositions do not seem to be coming from young people. According to a Deloitte report, Australian members of Generation Z are as supportive, if not more, of social media age restrictions compared to other generations. Of the Gen Zs surveyed, 91% agreed that there should be stronger restrictions on childrenâs access to social media, and over a third supported an outright ban.
Another report by The New York Times paints a similar picture for American young people: 45% said they would not allow their own child to have a smartphone before 14, while 57% believed that parents should restrict their childâs access before high school. A surprising number of respondents said that they wished social media platforms had never been invented, including Instagram (34%), Snapchat (43%), TikTok (47%) and X/Twitter (50%).
These findings may be expected given that Gen Z is uniquely attuned to â and affected by â the mental health impacts of social media use. Yet they nonetheless prove that young people want freedom from as well as freedom to. When I speak to my students, they frequently tell me that they actually feel a tangible sense of relief when their phones are taken away, or that they wish nobody had a smartphone because the only reason they have one is the fear of missing out.
Last year, I conducted a phone use survey with some of my sixth form students, and at the end I asked them if there was anything they wished teachers knew or understood about social media. Many wrote about how it had affected their attention span, or how the algorithm had led them to places they had never intended to go, but one student wrote this particular insight:
âEven things that should just be funny and light-hearted like TikTok can make you feel really sad about your own life sometimes, because even just casual videos of two people hanging out or someone on holiday could make you wish things like that would happen to you. I wish I didnât always know what other people were doing, but I feel like I canât leave either.â
This sense of entrapment not only puts pressure on young people, but also their parents, who struggle to stand firm and set boundaries against the addictive dopamine pull of a smartphone screen. In Australia, perhaps this bill will finally offer everyone a way out.
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeThe first time I can actually starting agreeing with an approach adopted by the police state of Australia.
You could argue this police state have decided to shield young people from the progressive nonsense they originally propagated!
Might be the teeniest weeniest exaggeration of Australian law!
Yep. We understand that people exaggerate what went on during the pandemic, and yes, Victoria was pretty unpleasant, but hey, we don’t have non-crime hate crime.
Hang on, Lesley – it’s Australia – there must be a catch!
There is a catch – see my comment above……
I read your comment. I see something similar happening here in the US. In order to ‘protect the children’ we must be able to track everyone and everything going on. This is not benign. As you say, look to China and the social credit system evolving. In conversations with people regarding our first and second amendments, which I grant result in social problems, I always come back to this: Do not allow your rights to be defined by the actions and habits of the worst people in our society.
The prevailing culture of influencers, social media, etc., I believe, is causing societal rot and not participating in it is the only option for personal health. And kids are very vulnerable to it – we’re supposed to shield children, as a society, from harmful products and people.
But, I do not have an answer to the question, “Ok. So what would you do?” I wish I did. It’s like hate speech laws or ‘hate’ in general – you can’t legislate good behavior. And you really can’t legislate ‘safety’ either.
Listen I’m not a fan of social media. I don’t let my own kids have it. But the problem is no one is clear on what “social media” is, often times “social media” seems to be code for “companies I dislike”.
We can all agree twitter is social media, but what about unherd? After all I can leave comment and interact with others socially. Does that make it social media? What about reddit or 4chan? What if I have a blogging platform that lets people blog is that social media?
Mark my words this had everything to do with the government being able to tie your online identity to your real identity by requiring verification anytime you use the Internet all smuggled under the guise of “think of the children”.
You are right in your concerns, but the problem is that your opinion is not shared by most women. In more or less comfortable conditions, they immediately become enemies of progress and evolution.
For those who are outraged by my assertion about the inevitable and dangerous conservatism inherent in women, I would advise you to read this article
http://www.geodakian.com/en/ETS/30_Sex_Theory_en.htm
At least you will understand better the harm that women teachers cause in universities. By the way, there was an article on the same topic in Quillette
https://quillette.com/2022/10/08/sex-and-the-academy/
.
PS. 11/30/2024: Sorry, bros, I didn’t search this specifically
.
https://dailysceptic.org/2024/11/30/the-oxford-scientist-trying-to-cancel-elon-musk/
.
The Oxford Scientist Trying to Cancel Elon Musk.
Dorothy Bishop, an Oxford University professor, revealed she had resigned as a Fellow of the Royal Society (FRS) in protest at Muskâs continued membership of the organisation. Highlighting the Societyâs code of conduct, which requires fellows to treat each other with courtesy, she said: âIâm not going to be polite and nice to Elon Musk”.
.
Most academician women are natural enemies of free speech!
What on Earth has this to do with the subject in question? The majority of Australian MPs and politicians are not women……
I simply can’t see either the relevance of this sweeping assertion, or its accuracy. Please provide some specific evidence. Women are opposed to evolution?! And I have to say, I kind of wonder if you have any idea yourself about the theory of evolution……
This is a legit concern. How do we prove weâre an adult? Digital ID? I support the idea of restricting kids on social media, but this is a legit question – one that was not addressed under the legislation.
* Unherd, based on “not the herd”
Edit noted.
Bingo, that’s what it’s all about
I get your point about how vague ‘social media’ can beâitâs a broad term, and itâs true that platforms like Reddit or even blogging sites blur the lines. But while I agree with concerns about government overreach, social media isnât going anywhere. For platforms like Instagram, though, building a presence is crucial for some people. If youâre looking to grow on Instagram, Iâd recommend checking out instagram followers service âjust make sure theyâre legit and focus on organic growth!
Isnât that actually the atrociously named âGen Alphaâ not Gen Z? Also thereâs NOTHING âAlphaâ about that age groupâŠ
Iâm no fan of social media, but this desire to be looked after and protected by others, rather than take responsibility for oneâs own choices appears to be more general. And it doesnât stop at 16 or even 18. The use of the âbrain not fully developed until 25â argument (by gen Z) is becoming more and more common as a request to be kept for longer in a state of extended childhood.
I would probably support a ban til 16, even perhaps 18. But I fear that gen Z support for this is an expression of infantilism rather than good sense.
Sadly, the author has been misled by the Australian government’s narrative. The Digital ID act will require all users (including adults) to register their name, date of birth and private details so that we can now all be tracked on line. It is a Trojan Horse for censorship, CCP-flavoured, government surveillance and egregious removal of anonymity online. The majority of Australians were against this Digital ID bill in polling. Thank goodness there is a provision not to comply. As a fierce supporter of open and robust public debate I will not be signing up. I know no one (with a critical thinking brain) who is. We can now be hunted down (like in the UK) and jailed for saying anything that is contrary to the government’s narrative. Remember COVID? This will be a failed policy, and another international embarrassment for Australia. (Remember Australia is the only country in the world that refuses to consider nuclear power). So, so sorry world. PS: Because the Australian government is so concerned about “protecting” the children, PornHub will still be available.