By Matt Underwood Australia says the world will follow social media ban as Meta starts blocking teens, and this whole situation is definitely sparking a lot of thought. It’s like we’re all trying to figure out if this is a bold step forward or a stumble in the dark. The core of the issue, and what everyone seems to agree on, is that something needs to be done about how social media is impacting younger generations. The way things are, it’s like our data is a valuable currency, and these platforms have designed features that even adults struggle to resist. What chance do our kids have?
This ban might feel like a last resort, but it could also have been the obvious first choice. The reality is, these corporate giants weren’t going to budge on their own. The shift, though, could have some unintended consequences, like a resurgence of things like MMOs and gacha games. It’s also worth pointing out that parents need to consider how to navigate their children’s digital socializing with or without these platforms. The whole question of whether to ban things, or regulate things instead seems to be at the heart of the debate.
On the one hand, social media’s influence is undeniably powerful, and maybe it should be a public service, not a private enterprise. Some people are saying “won’t somebody please think of the children,” which, let’s be honest, is a pretty old tactic. There is a concern that this move is just a thinly veiled excuse to collect more data. Kids are not at fault; the corporations are. The whole debate around KOSA in the US, with its First Amendment concerns, mirrors some of the hesitancy others have about this ban.
However, the ban could inadvertently create more harm than good, cutting off kids who rely on social media for connections and support. Some might argue that it is a well-intentioned but lazy solution to a complex problem. Banning the platforms that teens actually use might not do anything. It really is a bit of a psychology experiment on our youth.
The question of whether banning is the right approach is a tough one. The mental health concerns associated with social media, for both kids and adults, are undeniable. But then, there’s the argument that we should be focusing on banning things like smart phone use from kids instead of privacy. And, as we’ve seen, it pushes kids to VPNs and sketchier platforms with zero oversight. Shouldn’t we regulate data harvesting and dark patterns instead of outsourcing parenting to Meta?
This whole thing feels like a reaction to social media as a brand new thing, and that the rules were always going to be lax at first. There’s also the suggestion that if you are a good parent, you’re already restricting your child’s access to social media. At the heart of that statement is the very real concern that the lack of critical thinking is something social media cultivates and is now everywhere in modern culture.
There is a consensus that we need to be very careful that such bans don’t lead to unchecked abuse. The tech companies will be keen to get everyone ID checked, because they want a world where everything you do is just data collection, processed, and filed. This situation potentially proves that external forces could throw the rest of the world into chaos whenever they like.
Is there any good that can come from social media? The fact is it is hard to argue for a public good. Maybe the lack of a public good is a feature and not a bug. They want us to upload our facial scans and government IDs. The tech bros are the villains of our time. They can’t handle the blow to their revenue. Perhaps social media should be a public service, not a private enterprise. And we are all left with the thought of “what if” – what if we all lost social media? Australia’s move could be a turning point, making Big Tech view national governments as hostile. Maybe it’s a win for progress.