I have spent years working with adolescents, as a teacher and school counselor in public schools in New South Wales, and now in private practice as a psychologist and cyberpsychology educator for all ages.
I began exploring cyberpsychology in my psychology honors thesis on Year 10 children and video games in 2009. And my master’s thesis examined self-control and problematic smartphone use in Year 7 students.
I see firsthand some of the shocking, sad, and sometimes avoidable problems that arise when developing minds access powerful technology too young, too often, and without proper supervision.
But I don’t think rushed plans to ban teenagers from social media are an effective or meaningful way to address concerns about the youth mental health crisis.
That said, I also believe in parents’ right to choose to delay the adoption of smartphones and social media and that reducing peer pressure to be on social media until at least high school would be a great first step. that we could collectively give tomorrow. .
Here are some of the reasons why I don’t agree with the current ban plans: Prime Minister Anthony Albanese’s government introduced legislation to the House of Representatives on Thursday morning.
Reason #1. The research on social media and youth mental health is quite murky and inconclusive..
If you’ve read (or pretended to read) Jonathan Haidt’s extensive book Anxious generationYou will think that the investigation is all settled. It is not, far from it; even Professor Pat McGorry agrees.
We need to investigate the complex and dynamic ways people use social media, not just track time spent, which is like counting digital calories without considering nutritional content.
I have spent years working with adolescents, as a teacher, school counselor, and now in private practice as a psychologist and cyberpsychology educator for all ages. I do not believe this plan is an effective way to address concerns about the youth mental health crisis.
2. Social media use, like “screen time,” is not one thing, but a million things, some of which are positive.
Reducing all ways of using social media to binary notions of good and bad is not only unhelpful but shows how little adults understand about the complexities, utilities and benefits of social media.
When we use it intentionally and in an empowered way to align with our goals and values, research like this shows positive results. There are already a variety of tools to help manage usage, from parental controls to lock and mute buttons.
Bans ignore the benefits (e.g. watching Question Time in Parliament on YouTube!) and create further risks and marginalization for vulnerable and isolated young people who use social media beneficially.
3. Effective age verification technology does not (yet) exist and will be expensive to build and maintain.
We are trying to legislate a solution that has been abandoned in the countries that tried it.
To verify someone’s age, we need to verify their identity; This means that people over 16 will also need to prove their age through these ‘age gate’ systems, so Baby Boomers will also have to go through verification to use Facebook.
This will create third-party technology companies to store identity documents and create a digital bank vault that could become a target for hackers and fraudsters. It’s called the World Wide Web and getting around a geographic boundary is as simple as a VPN.
Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and Communications Minister Michelle Rowland are expected to introduce legislation banning the use of social media by under-16s to Parliament today.
4. Bans do not teach young people to navigate digital spaces.
Like any complex skill, learning how to use social media requires role modeling, repetition, and rehearsal.
As with pool safety and learning to swim or drive, we must support young people to learn dynamic ways to safely and intelligently participate in social media spaces and manage a variety of conditions and situations.
Young people learn through experience, not just theory (or individual sessions from guest speakers at the assembly). Therefore, creating isolated versions of social media platforms, like the new Teens Instagram accounts recently launched, helps them learn with the digital training wheels on.
We don’t give kids the keys to the SUV at 16 and let them drive. We also didn’t ban cars when people were in tragic accidents: we set safety standards, developed more road rules, and changed licensing regulations.
5. A ban can signal permission for parents to no longer intervene in digital well-being practices, and that will reduce pressure on Big Tech to prioritize accountability.
The ban may inadvertently allow parents to abdicate their responsibility to monitor and guide their children’s online behavior.
We didn’t grow up with this technology and it has caught many parents off guard in terms of confidence in handling devices, setting limits and resolving conflicts that often arise.
Parents need more practical support to address these issues, not weak, fear-fueled laws that are unenforceable.
Making “social media” illegal does not stop children from accessing it. They will do so in more covert and risky ways, and wander through darker spaces with even less trust and safety measures than the big actors, once again catching overwhelmed and exhausted parents off guard.
Even if Parliament ignores the recommendations of its own joint committee and these laws are passed before Christmas, it will be more than 12 months before the legislation can reasonably come into force.
There are a variety of practical actions that parents and caregivers can take today to improve the digital well-being of the teens and tweens in their lives.
The mental health of young people deserves our immediate and sustained attention and action. The best way to achieve this is through deliberate legislative design, not desperate deployment. Let us act prudently to effectively protect people.
Jocelyn Brewer is a Sydney-based psychologist and founder of Digital Nutrition.