By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Greek Prime Minister Kyriakos Mitsotakis announced that Greece is considering banning social media use for children under 16, mirroring potential age restrictions implemented in Australia. This announcement was made at the “Protecting Children in the Digital Age” event. Mitsotakis highlighted concerns about the impact of artificial intelligence and chatbots on children, recognizing the need for proactive measures. He also emphasized shared responsibility, including governmental actions like banning smartphones in schools and launching a parental control tool, as well as collaboration with families and technology companies.
Read the original article here
Greece is considering banning social media for under 16 year olds. Well, that’s certainly a topic that sparks a lot of debate! It’s like wading into a minefield of opinions, isn’t it? Some people are all for it, seeing it as a crucial step to protect young people, while others are deeply skeptical, pointing out the sheer difficulty of enforcing such a ban and questioning its ultimate effectiveness.
A common concern is around the enforcement of this ban. How exactly would they make sure kids under 16 don’t access these platforms? There are arguments about it being a modern-day version of prohibition, and we all know how successful those were. The internet, after all, is a tricky beast. Trying to control it, especially when it comes to young people, can be like herding cats. There are all sorts of workarounds, from VPNs to simply using a friend’s birthdate.
Many feel that this move is a bandage solution, that might even create more issues than it solves. A more valuable approach, according to some, is teaching kids about social media early on. Arming them with the knowledge to navigate its pitfalls and make informed choices. The idea is to empower them, rather than just restrict them. Some would even prefer the platforms themselves to adopt a “kids’ mode,” offering a safer, less addictive version for younger users.
There’s also a feeling that the real problem isn’t the platforms themselves, but the lack of parental oversight. Some of the arguments suggest the focus should be on parents taking more responsibility and teaching their kids media literacy. Others feel that it’s just another example of government overreach, potentially turning into something even more invasive, like mass surveillance.
There’s the argument that the goal should be to teach critical thinking. That by restricting, and making it more difficult to access social media, kids are challenged to work around the system. Some believe this can actually teach them to question authority and resist rules that they don’t agree with. A few people even draw a comparison to the violence-in-video-games debate, a similar wave of panic that had little real impact.
The idea that social media is inherently harmful is a strong sentiment too. Some people feel that these platforms are destroying social cohesion and contributing to widespread issues. There’s talk of addiction and how the algorithms are engineered to keep users hooked. The sentiment is that social media should be off-limits to minors entirely. There’s the idea that we need to teach children about the risks involved.
Then there is the comparison to drug use and the idea that it is a dangerous tool, much like fentanyl. And others believe that the solution is more education, and not restrictions. This could lead to the same outcome as D.A.R.E., which, in the end, didn’t have the effect it intended.
Finally, there’s a widespread understanding that it’s not as simple as banning or allowing access. The most beneficial approach, according to some, is teaching teenagers how to make informed choices. It seems like we’re all trying to find the best way to protect our young people in an ever-changing digital landscape.