Regulating new technology is often a reactive process. There tends to not be enough data about the effects of new technology and so it can be difficult for regulators to predict or understand how to regulate the new technology (Kaal). For instance, the first social media platform was launched in 1977 (sciencepod). Plus, social media only started to gain popularity in the early 2000s and so it is still a relatively new technology. Moreover, the way generations interact and use technology is adapting over the years and so we are still developing the role social media plays in our lives. Hence, as the law is constantly developing to reflect our current understanding and beliefs, this also extends to how the law treats social media which has resulted in the thought that underage use of social media should be banned.

Reasons Behind Banning

As I mentioned, social media is relatively new and so there is limited research on its long-term effects. However, there are multiple studies that show links between heavy social media use and increased risk for for depression, anxiety, loneliness, self-harm and suicidal thoughts (Robinson and Smith). Therefore, while we may not have extensive research on its long-term effects, it would not be far-fetched to imagine that it is not ideal.

Children are the future of our society and there is an urge to protect them as they can be vulnerable due to their age. Those that are older, including parents and regulators, will likely feel an obligation to protect children. This may seem paternalistic, but within this particular relationship of children and adults, I believe there is a responsibility on those older to take certain measures to protect children. In this situation, I think this can be considered a case of liberal paternalism using Mill’s example of the bridge- that if a child had all the information surrounding the topic that they would choose not to use social media. On the other hand, that may be overly simplistic as many adults know the harmful effects of social media but still choose to use it. Hence, why would we presume to remove that autonomy from children?

I think that this comes down to the fact that we believe adults are able to make those decisions and have the right to act in a harmful way towards themselves. Children are restricted from a multitude of things: for things like alcohol and nicotine it is because it is more harmful when you are young, and for others it is a matter of competency. Society tends not to believe that children are competent enough to make those decisions and so till they are able to do so, those older make those decisions for them.

Effect of Banning Social Media

Banning social media is not just a hypothetical discussion. The Australian government has recently banned social media for those under 16 (Ritchie 2024b). This has naturally created debate because, like most things, social media is multi-faceted; it has its benefits through allowing people to connect with those they care about globally, access communities, express themselves etc.

As a result, they are those who are concerned that banning social media will lead children to use less regulated platforms (Ritchie 2024b). Social media will also still exist in other countries and so children are likely to turn to other platforms in order to continue engaging in that sphere. Social media is extremely prevalent and I think most children will look for replacements or access it illegally. And so, if children are going to illegally access social media, should it still be banned? I think it reduces the effectiveness as I believe the aim of the ban is to protect children and if it simply leads them to unregulated platforms then it may defeat the point. However, the Australian Prime Minister acknowledges that while the ban may not be implemented perfectly, having the ban is the right thing to do (Ritchie 2024b). Hence, the ban is operating as a symbol and, as the aim is to represent the view that social media should be banned, it likely comes as a moot point that it may not be effective.

Banning vs Regulating

Commissioner Grant is organizing the implementation and enforcement of the Australian ban, but she would rather focus on investing in educating children and having cleaner platforms. Moreover, over 100 Australian academics think the ban is “too blunt” and that it does not assist children in having safe access to digital environments. The Australian government has acknowledged this and says it will eventually implement “digital duty of care laws” (Ritchie 2024a). This reflects how a ban is not the whole solution in how to respond to social media.

The UK is also planning on introducing tougher regulation on underage use of social media and this has caused social media companies to adopt strategies to protect children. TikTok will restrict the use of their beauty filters over concerns on its effect on self-esteem, Roblox is going to prevent their younger users from accessing more violent and crude content over warnings of child grooming, and Instagram is introducing teen accounts which will give parents greater control (Booth). These strategies may be more effective at controlling how children access social media than a straight ban. For example, while France blocked access to social media for those under 15 without parental consent, research shows that almost half of users used VPN to get around it (Ritchie 2024a). Therefore, working with social platforms to regulate may prove more effective in protecting children.

As a result, I think that even if a ban is used that it should not be the whole solution. I find the strategies employed by the social platforms above to be interesting, and I think that governments and social media platforms should work together when devising these strategies as it could create novel, effective solutions.