Editorial: Social media may hurt teenagers but banning it is not the answer

EDITORIAL

The backlash against social media addiction among teenagers is reaching a crescendo. Last month the Australian Government announced it would ban children from using social media. The minimum age is expected to fall between 14 and 16.

Days later, Instagram responded to growing public pressure by announcing changes to its teen accounts. Parents will be able to set daily time limits for using the app, block teens from using Instagram at certain times and to see accounts their child is exchanging messages with and the content categories they are viewing.

The level of concern is understandable. As the Herald has reported over the past two years, social media platforms such as Tik Tok and Instagram have been linked to a dramatic increase in mental health problems among New Zealand teens. While some researchers still believe that link is inconclusive, others maintain the correlation between rising teenage anxiety, depression and loneliness and increased time spent on social media is overwhelming. For instance, US psychologist Jean Twenge found the time teenagers went out with their friends, without parents, had held steady for 30 years. Then in 2010, it fell off a cliff – just as teen smartphone use and social media time exploded.

South Australian Premier Peter Malinauskas, whose state is already enacting a social media ban for under-14s, argues it will allow teens to stay off social media without feeling they’re the only ones missing out. Supporters say while many older children will flout the ban – just as many choose to drink underage – it becomes easier for parents to enforce “because it’s the law”, as schools have already found with the blanket ban on cellphones.

So why should New Zealand be wary? Critics point out young people in Australia can easily bypass the ban by using virtual private networks (VPNs), so they appear to be in a different country. Social media is global, so the ban only makes sense if it is enforced globally.

It is also difficult to prove people’s age online. Most sites currently rely on self-reporting, which is a farce. Children under 13 provide fake birthdates to create social media accounts and teenagers simply tap “yes” when asked to verify if they’re over the age of 18.

The alternatives look even worse. Parental consent raises privacy issues and is still open to abuse. Age estimation using behavioural data or biometrics is subject to error and would hand even more of our personal data to the tech giants – or the Government. The Australian proposal is under attack because it could force young people to sign up to a national ID system to prove they’re 16.

Critics also point out a lot of online engagement can be good. Young people make friends, communicate and learn about the world online, just as their parents do. As any 14-year-old could scornfully tell you, it feels like the height of hypocrisy for parents to ban young teenagers from social media when their phone addiction is often just as bad.

Australia’s attempted ban could be indirectly useful if it gains popularity and forces the world’s biggest tech companies to take greater responsibility for the enormous social harm they have caused. But, unfortunately, the time for action on this was about 30 years ago, well before today’s teens were born.