By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Social media companies have expressed strong opposition to Australia’s new regulations, arguing the ban could harm children by limiting their access and connectivity. Tech giants like Meta, Snapchat, and YouTube have voiced concerns, citing potential negative impacts on youth and parental control. However, former Facebook Australia chief Stephen Scheeler views the legislation as a “seat belt moment,” akin to safety advancements in other industries, suggesting that even imperfect regulation is preferable to the previous lack of oversight due to the negative aspects.
Read the original article here
Australia’s world-first social media ban for under-16s comes into effect, and it’s definitely a topic sparking some strong opinions. I mean, it’s pretty wild to think about a world without social media for kids, especially when you consider how intertwined it is with their lives these days. The immediate thought is how this is going to be a huge shift, and not necessarily an easy one to enforce.
Thinking back to when these platforms first popped up, you needed to be a certain age to sign up. Then, like magic, everyone seemed to have an account. The idea of a ban brings up questions about whether it will actually work. Will kids find ways around it? The reality is, a lot of people are betting that they will. We all remember the early days. It’s like, back in the day, the internet wasn’t even this complicated; now, getting around the rules is a skillset. VPNs are a real thing, and they’re easy to access, even on phones. It’s almost like, “Hey, let’s make a law, knowing full well it’s probably going to be circumvented.”
The sentiment is understandable. Social media can be genuinely harmful. There’s undeniable evidence of the damage it can cause, and it makes you think about all the issues. Bullying, body image issues, the constant pressure to conform, are all valid concerns. But then, you have another side, a lot of people talking about their own experiences. People saying social media played a key role in their lives, maybe it helped them find their place and build those crucial connections. It’s a complicated issue, it’s not simply good or bad.
The idea of a better-regulated online space, one without private messaging, where any nasty comments are out in the open, seems like a potentially good idea. It would eliminate a lot of the problems. It would definitely shift the dynamic and probably force a level of accountability. But the reality is the implementation would be incredibly difficult.
It is interesting, though, how much the ban feels like it’s a response to parents who might be struggling to set boundaries. It’s almost like, “We don’t know how to handle this, so let’s get the government to make a rule.” It does feel like a big step towards more surveillance and personal data collection. The comments about the UK’s situation, and the potential for a “digital ID and social credit system” are definitely interesting food for thought.
The business model of social media, and how it thrives on our engagement, is important to consider. The way it’s designed to keep us hooked, and how it pushes short-form videos and other addictive content at young people, is a real problem. The pressure kids face to join in and fit in is real, and the ban, by a wide margin, might be a good thing.
It feels like, as with everything, people are going to find a way around the rules. If this happens, it might teach the children to navigate the ever-changing landscape of laws and authority. There are people wanting a completely revamped internet, one that is globally regulated, where online identities are linked to real people, with serious consequences for breaking the rules. That’s an interesting concept, although, as with all the ideas surrounding this, pretty complicated.
It is going to be fascinating to see how things evolve over the next five to ten years. The kids who grow up without social media. It’s a big question, and the change will be interesting.
The purpose of a law isn’t always to stop everyone from doing something; it’s to punish when it happens. The point is not necessarily to stop young people from getting in but, instead, creating a framework where the platforms cannot profit.
It’s a step, sure, but what are the big players going to do? Ultimately, the companies’ incentives are to keep users engaged, even if they’re under 16. It all depends on how strictly the companies enforce it, and whether they can prevent young people from accessing their sites.
The comments about how social media is a negative influence feel completely accurate. If you’re not paying for the product, you *are* the product. The ban could be a good thing.
It would be amazing to see a US president take a strong stand on this and enforce a ban for everyone.
The early days of social media are important to remember: it was about college students, and it evolved to include high school students, and then everyone. It was not always regulated like it is now. Back then, they didn’t care about the age requirements.
Education for users and accountability for the providers is essential. And there’s a lot of truth in the observation that, at the end of the day, these sites knew kids would lie about their age. It may be impossible to do anything. The ban may be a step in the right direction. It will be interesting to watch.