In a speech to the New South Wales and South Australian government social media summit today, more details of how the federal government’s proposed social media ban would actually work.
Author
Lisa M. Given
Professor of Information Sciences & Director, Social Change Enabling Impact Platform, RMIT University
The government first announced the ban last month, children under 14 from social media. But experts have the idea, and this week more than 120 experts from Australia and overseas wrote to Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and state and territory premiers urging a rethink.
Despite this, the government appears to be ploughing ahead with the proposed ban. The details Rowland announced today do not meaningfully address many of the criticisms made over the past few weeks.
In fact, they actually raise new problems.
What are the details of the social media ban?
In her speech, Rowland said the government will amend the to “place the onus on platforms, not parents or young people” to enforce the proposed social media ban.
The changes will be implemented over 12 months to give industry and the regulator time to implement key processes.
The government says it “will set parameters to guide platforms in designing social media that allows connections, but not harms, to flourish”. These parameters could address some of the “addictive” features of these platforms, for instance by limiting potential harms by prioritising content feeds from accounts people follow, or making age-appropriate versions of their apps.
The government is also considering an:
exemption framework to accommodate access for social media services that demonstrate a low risk of harm to children.
The problem with “low risk”
But allowing young people to access social media platforms that have a demonstrated “low risk of harm” is fraught with issues.
Risk is difficult to define – especially when it comes to social media.
As I explained , risk “sits on a spectrum and is not absolute”. Risk cannot be determined simply by considering a social media platform itself, or by knowing the age of the person using it. What’s risky for one person may not be risky for someone else.
How, then, will the government determine which social media platforms have a “low risk of harm”?
Simply focusing on technical changes to social media platform design in determining what constitutes “low risk” will not address key areas of potential harm. This may give parents a false sense of security when it comes to the “low-risk” solutions technology companies offer.
Let’s assume for a moment that qualify as having a “low risk of harm” and young people would still be allowed to use them.
The teen version of Instagram will be set to private by default and have stronger content restrictions in place than regular accounts. It will also allow parents to see the categories of content children are accessing, and the accounts they follow, but will still require parental oversight.
But this doesn’t solve the risk problem.
There will still be harmful content on social media. And young people will still be exposed to it when they are old enough to have an unrestricted account, potentially without the support and guidance they need to safely engage with it. If children don’t gain necessary skills for navigating social media at an early age, potential harms may be deferred, rather than addressed and safely negotiated with parental support.
A better approach
The harmful content on social media platforms doesn’t just pose a risk to young people. It poses a risk to everybody – adults included. For this reason, the government’s heavy focus on encouraging platforms to demonstrate a “low risk of harm” only to young people seems a little misguided.
A better approach would be to strive to ensure social media platforms are safe for all users, regardless of their age. Ensuring platforms have mechanisms for users to report potentially harmful content – and for platforms to remove inappropriate content – is crucial for keeping people safe.
Platforms should also ensure users can block accounts, such as when a person is being bullied or harassed, with consequences for account holders found to engage in such harmful behaviour.
It is important that government requirements for “low-risk” accounts include these and other mechanisms to identify and limit harmful content at source. for tech companies that fail to comply with legislation are also needed.
The federal government could also provide extra resources for parents and children, to help them to navigate social media content safely.
A by the New South Wales government showed 91% of parents with children aged 5-17 believe “more should be done to teach young people and their parents about the possible harms of social media”.
The SA government appears to be heeding this message. Today it also for more social media education in schools.
Providing more proactive support like this, rather than pursuing social media bans, would go a long way to protecting young Australians while also ensuring they have access to helpful and supportive social media content.
