SThe media has transformed our relationships with our friends and family, brought unhelpful news from all over the world to our phones and presented an endless supply of cat. Some of this was positive, some are negative, and for many of it, the jury is still outside. But when the first generation of social media begins to have their own children, there is a lack of relief to the effects of technology on children. These concerns prompted Australia to pass legislation last November to prohibit access to social media for less than 16 years.
“Many things happen simultaneously,” says Sonia Levingstone, a professor of social psychology at the London College of Economics and specialized in children and social media. “It is clear that we have a silent problem from parents at home who struggle with social media and a feeling of lack of support. We have a small number of parents whose children have been seriously damaged, or died, who have been filled. We have politicians worried about complaints in their electoral circles and it seems that we are looking About a good news story in dark times. Discussion has become an explicit embargo on social media for less than 16 years of assumption.
The UK government has spoken to the Alabaihi site: Peter Kyle, the technology secretary, said last November that the ban was “on the table”, before he was told Guardian He was “not on cards” at the present time. In January, he said: “I have no plans to ban social media for less than 16 years.”
While the UK government seems to decide that the embargo is not for them, some big names have indicated their support. “There is a good opportunity because this is smart,” said Bill Gates, co -founder of Microsoft recently on the Australian ban. The head of the UK police to combat terrorism said that the embargo “calls for serious attention.” Chris Philip, the shadow minister, said that he “supports” a large scale “for the ban, but the minimum age may be less than 16.
“There is a great deal of conflict and uncertainty in the world,” says Levingston. “It seems that social media is the problemable problem.” But is it prohibited to reach the answer?
How can a social media ban work?
the New Australian law He says that social media networks must take “reasonable steps” to prevent those under the age of 16 from an account when the law enters into effect in December this year.
What this means in practice is not fully embodied, but an explanatory note indicates that the minimum level must put the technique of “ensuring age”, which may include face recognition and age assessment. This technology is often presented as a solution to determine the age of a person, but it remains appreciated – and it can be a mistake. The average gap between what one of these systems believes is that a person’s age and his actual age can differ between a year and three years. This may be a small margin of error in a 45 -year -old child, but if you are a 18 -year -old student and the computer says you are 15 years old, so you cannot join social media with your university friends, this is frustrating.
Will the ban actually work?
He found a newly joint poll Three quarters of the audience It will support a ban on social media for less than 16 years, from the current minimum age of 13 years when children can reach legal platforms. Many parents will be at the end of their intelligence and they are struggling to maintain the safety of their children on the Internet. “There is no place for children under the age of 16,” says Vicky Burman, a mother of three children, one of them under the age of 16. Not equipped to deal with it.
Typical for many parents, Burman supports the ban. “It is time for us to restore childhood to our children, ensuring that they have the opportunity to create permanent memories away from the screens,” she says.
However, even those who are pushing publicly to do something that do not believe that the explicit ban on children who reach social media is the solution. Andy Buruz is the CEO of the Molly Rose Foundation, which was created by the 14 -year -old Molly Russell family and who took her life after bombing negative on social media. He says: “The truth is that if we withdraw the cloud bridge on social media platforms, these bad actors will not disappear.” “They will simply migrate to gaming and messages services, and the risks will be that the scale of damage on these platforms becomes unnecessary.”
Sonya Livingstone also has doubts. “The ban makes a great title and it seems clear, but it is not,” she says. “The ban is supposed to be a ban on technology companies that provide problematic products for children, and soon it becomes a ban on children who reach technology.”
What is the protection that exists at the present time, and how effective judgment is to be?
There is currently protection for children’s social media users – many of them run it and run it on social media platforms – for example, users should be more than 13 years. “But they are not very transparent or stable,” says Levingston. Most of the companies that are suspected are managed by children under the age of 13 and put the advantages of the child’s safety, such as the limits of those who can send a message to them or the type of content they can face. Levingson, who speaks regularly to children as part of her research, says. They say they are still receiving messaging requests from adult users.
“There is some protection, but it is not enough at all,” says Levingston. And even [UK’s] Online safety law and [EU’s] Digital Services Law, we are far from obtaining this algorithm that people really want. (While the laws have been approved, the enforcement of the organizers, such as Offcom in the United Kingdom, is still months away). Al -Jahor agrees on the United Kingdom. It works more effectively for children. “
What is the evidence that the use of social media under 16 years is harmful?
If you read the book of the social world, Jonathan Anxiety generation – Who was on New York Times List of best best -selling books for 46 weeks – there is a lot of evidence as harmful. The book is a convincing warning about the polluted influence of social media and technology on the minds of adolescents.
However, one Statistics argue A large number of studies on which Haidt depended, some of which contradict his thinking. The author admits Two simple errors On its website. While his professor of psychology He accused Hydet From “creating stories by looking at the trend lines,” adding that his conclusions “were not backed by science.” Hydet says His critics have offended the interpretation of his claims, including using the wrong criterion for proof.
Among the criticism of the book is that Hydet confuses the relationship with causation. But his central argument appears to suit the concerns and experiences of many parents. Few people doubt that there is a teenage mental health crisis. Adults can feel the addictive nature of their smartphones. Discussions related to causal and abstract relationship can feel when parents face daily dilemmas on how to manage their children’s access to smartphones and social media.
What constitutes social media?
This is the big question that disturbs those who study this issue. Beth Echils, professor of psychology at Bath Spa University, author of the book “Bath Spa”, author of “Bath Spa”, author of “Bath Spa”, author of “Bath Spa”, author of “Bath Spa”, author of “Bath Spa” and author of the book ” Bath Spa “, author of” Bath Spa “, author of” Bath Spa “and author of” Bath Spa ” And his author, “We have no clear definitions of what legislators mean by social media at the present time. to open. Are two friends talking to each other on WhatsApp social media? What happens when adding a third? Does using the case update on WhatsApp makes it social?
The definition has not been settled, even by Australia. When she released her legislation in November, she failed to detail the companies that would be affected, although the country’s Minister of Communications Michel Roland said that Snapchat, Tiktok, X, Instagram, Reddit and Facebook may be subject to rules.
What is the evidence so far from Australia and other places that have been banned?
Australia is the highest country to take action, but its ban has not yet entered into force. In the absence of evidence of a complete ban, we must rely on data from a partial or scenario ban, such as reducing access to technology or phones in schools or in certain hours of the day. A A recent study Posted in Lancet Of more than 1,200 high school students did not find a big difference in the mental luxury of those who attend schools with a ban and restricted schools. The interpretation of the authors was that the ban on schools did not affect the use of the total phone. However, according to the study: “We have noticed that increasing the time it spends on phones/social media is greatly related to the results of poor mental and luxury health, physical activity, sleep, achievement and sabotage behavior.”
“Anecdotal, we know that the excessive ban on restriction, does not tend to work, and tends to circumvent by teenagers, however Feel “As is the case with the right thing,” says etchells. “The South Korean closure law is a good example.” In 2011, the country has a ban on children under 16 years of playing video game between midnight and 6 am to try to get rid of concerns about video game addiction. The law was canceled after a decade after the country realized that it had no intended influence, as the identity stealing increased as children found ways to circumvent them.
They are some manifestations big Technology focuses on Donald Trump in the United States – from reducing the size of moderation teams to cancellation of fact -examination initiatives – on the calls for ban?
During Joe Biden’s presidency, Levingston says, “There was a feeling that trust and safety teams were accumulating. But the recent attacks by the Trump campaign against NCMEC, the National Center for missing children and exploiters, a non -profit organization funded by the government of experts. NCMEC stops the spread of child abuse pictures, and he had Its financing is threatened On its gender ideology. In general, some fear that it adds to a dark image that may lead to more calls to explicit tools such as ban, rather than the most accurate measures that can make a real difference. “Online safety experts are really concerned about whether they are organized in their position to stand in Big Tech,” says Levingston. “At the present time, it is difficult to reassure children, parents and the public that social media will be safer next year.”