Australia has taken the lead in introducing the world’s first social media ban for teenagers under 16. Usually the word ‘ban’ awakens a crowd talking about democracy and freedom of choice on social media, but this time people are confused. ,
The hesitation not to oppose this immediately is understandable, especially for those who have children. Parents are a worrisome group. For example, for my mother, a missed call could also be a sign from the universe declaring me dead. In the age of the Internet, social media, and never-ending ‘doomscrolling’, such concerns have become even greater.
Is it the parents or the internet?
This is not completely unfair either. A simple Google search of ‘teen dies by suicide due to social media’ is enough to paint a picture of what social media brings to our children: bullying, harassment, insecurity, peer pressure, unrealistic standards. To make matters worse, we now have chat bots. Last month, a 14-year-old boy shot himself, believing he was ‘going home’ to the love of his life, an AI bot. Leaked chats between the bot and the boy indicate that the bot’s language may have played a role in motivating the impressionable teen to take his own life. However, many people on social media blamed the parents.
Questions raised: Why couldn’t parents see the warning signs? Were there some underlying mental health issues? The online crowd was divided. One section wanted strict rules for AI and chatbots. Others, who argued that AI is bound to become an integral part of our lives, pointed to the indifference of the parents, who later admitted that their teenage son sometimes looked distressed and did not have many friends. Were. Both sides were right and wrong in equal measure.
Parenting or lifestyle magazines these days are full of articles targeted at young adults or parents of pre-pubescent children, warning them about how social media is harming their child. She has some great suggestions: limit screen time, put a parental lock, invest more in offline activities, or just talk to kids. These are all good points but they have little practical impact. What happens when parents themselves are addicted to social media?
A complex restriction to enforce
Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese said about the social media ban proposal that it is for ‘moms and dads’ who are always worried about social media. Great. But it also has disadvantages.
Although the proposal claims that ‘parental consent’ would not change this universally applicable law, it does not specify what would happen in cases where the content involves children of vloggers or bloggers’ families. Are. The proposed law prevents a child from registering on a social media platform, but all this is meaningless if the child is being used by the parent for engagement. Such children are exploited by their parents for their social media content: bath time, meals, family interactions, or even relatively private phases are fair game for the parents. Will Australia propose any regulation for this sector?
Second, it is unclear how the tech platform will handle the ban. I was on Orkut when I was 13 years old. Suppose social media platforms ask for ID proof, can’t the child provide fake documents? Suppose the platform is asked to verify posted photos. But what if the child never posts anything and only uses social media to consume content, and is influenced by it in the process?
Sanctions usually don’t work. If anything, a banned product, in the absence of adequate enforcement, becomes a guilty pleasure for most. This is the essential condition of the great teenage rebellion. It is time that lawmakers around the world understand this when making laws for youth.
(The author is an assistant producer at NDTV)
Disclaimer: These are the personal opinions of the author
