Social media ban under attack from parents

By Sarah Goff-Tunks, Erin Hee, Orlando Sagar and Vincent Zaccheo

Parents of children under 16 who have had their social media access cut off under new legislation introduced by the Albanese government say the move is ill-conceived, error-ridden and even potentially harmful.

The ban for children on platforms including TikTok, Instagram, Facebook and Reddit came into affect last week in a world first by Australia.

Social media platforms falling under the umbrella of the legislation are compelled to introduce restrictions and checks for U-16s and face fines of close to $50 million if they fail to comply.

But parents Central News spoke to were either on the fence or dismissive of the initiative, which is designed to protect young children from being exposed to harmful content, and cited the benefits of children connecting on social media and being better informed.

Lynda Adams, 42, from Brisbane, the mother of 14- and 15-year-old daughters, said she was undecided.

“There are pros and cons,” she said. “It’s a Band-Aid fix and they need to get to the core of the problem: the people using it incorrectly, which are the adults that are preying on children, and not ban, necessarily, the under 16s.

“It comes down to parenting and we’re the parents. If it’s not safe you shouldn’t allow your child to have access to those apps. It’s teaching them right and wrong, teaching them how to use the apps properly and creating awareness of what to look out for.

“At the end of the day it’s what responsibility the parents take.”

My kids have always been really responsible on social media and they’ve got me on there as a friend, so I can see everything. So, as a parent you’re doing it yourself.

She added: “It’s also hard to put a ban on certain things when technology is so prevalent and it’s what they use every day in school. It potentially could also be narrowing down knowledge.

“I don’t think Snapchat or TikTok are safe, so I don’t allow my children to have access to them. And, there are always ways around the ban. And how are they going to regulate it? Are they going to track billions of children that are under 16? And how are they going to trace it back to that particular child and what are the implications to the child or the company?”

Susy Morales, 39, a childcare centre manager from Shellharbour on the New South Wales South Coast, said the app crackdown might reduce online bullying, but echoed concerns about parents abdicating responsibility for their children to the government.

She said her son Bronx, 11, had never had any issues online using social media, but had been blocked from his TikTok account on the first day of the ban.

The mum-of-three said her youngest daughter, 15, had been blocked from Instagram, as well as her older daughter – despite her being 17.

“I think if I had a child who was being bullied I would probably agree more with it,” she said. “I can see why they are banning it, but I’m sort of neutral because I haven’t had any of those experiences.

“My kids have always been really responsible on social media and they’ve got me on there as a friend, so I can see everything. So, as a parent you’re doing it yourself.”

Fifth grader Bronx described the ban as “horrible” and said it wasn’t necessary.

Access to social media platforms for young Australians, particularly school students, is highly important to stay informed about politics, also, warned Zareh Ghazarian, an associate professor and head of Politics and International Relations at Monash University.

“The concern is that without this sort of resource, young people may be hamstrung when it comes to trying to get political information that they would have otherwise been able to get,” he said.

Ghazarian recently completed a research project on how civics and citizenship is taught in schools and found that social media was highly valued by teachers as a resource for students to be aware of and take part in political discussions.

“The availability of social media for them was seen to be positive because, of course, young people could get that access to information about politics, about Australian politics, about international events, and they’d be exposed to issues and ideas beyond the classroom,” said Ghazarian.

“It’s critical for young people to build their confidence and their skills when it comes to politics and government.”

Professor Amanda Third, the co-director of Western Sydney University’s Young and Resilient Research Centre, said both the age limit and the timing were counterintuitive.

“One of the concerns I have about the age limit of 16 is that we’re encouraging children and young people to come onto social media right at the moment where they go into those super important final two years of high school,” she said.

“It’s counterintuitive to be saying that that’s the right moment to introduce children and young people to social media.”

She added: “For social media, I think 13 would be a logical limit, but it would require that we really make sure that when a 13-year-old goes online, onto social media, that they really are safe and that they can have a really fantastic experience.”

 

Mum-of-two Tina Stapleton, 47, a hospital admin from the New South Wales country town of Wagga Wagga, said she feared her 15-year-old son Will would be more isolated by the social media ban.

In regional areas the apps are often a primary source of connecting with friends outside of school, many who live long distances away in neighbouring towns.

“He (Will) does see them at school, but the majority of them don’t actually know their own phone numbers,” she said.

“So, it’s hard for them to keep in contact, especially if some live in the more regional areas, like smaller country towns like Ganmain and Coolamon, because they don’t necessarily know their surnames, they can’t look up a phone number and don’t have their addresses.

“They can’t interact after school on the socials that they had, so they’re now doing it at school, which is potentially interrupting class time. And, he’s like his mother, he’s a Chatty Cathy. So yeah, we had a few phone calls already this week [from school]. I was like, ‘there’s three days left of school, are you seriously getting in trouble for talking?’

“That’s probably the downfall. It’s their only way of communicating with their friends and their associates, and instead it will happen in time when they should be learning.”

According to Paula Gerber, a professor of law at Monash University, the ban could additionally have serious consequences for LGBTQIA+ youth living in regional and remote areas whose access to online communities will be significantly limited.

“If you live in a remote town, you’re likely to have never met, seen, heard or had the opportunity to speak to someone like you,” she said.

“For adolescents trying to figure out their identity, whether it’s their sexual orientation or their gender identity, often struggle to talk to family and friends in real life because they fear rejection.”

Gerber added that adolescents who would be unable to connect with online communities could suffer from loneliness and anxiety by being cut off from their social network.

“This creates a huge sense of loneliness, of isolation and poor mental health which can lead to self-harm and suicidal ideation,” she said.

“If people can connect with others online who are like them at these really critical junctures in their lives, that can be really affirming and supportive of them, they can see a future which they may not otherwise be able to visualise.”

Sydney mum Lesa Mulholland, 58, described the legislation as a “wasp in a hornet’s nest” and a “get out of jail free card” for parents who weren’t paying attention to what their children did online.

“I think it’s been a bit of a, a wasp in a hornet’s nest,” she said. “I think that it’s parents’ responsibility to manage their children, and not the government’s.

“There’s a lot of parents that have got problems with their kids with social media and they’re probably grateful that the government has put some blanket ban on it, and they feel that’s a bit of a get out of jail free card.”

She believed the ban would restrict her 15-year-old son Ethan’s education.

“I’m very happy for my son to be on social media,” she said. “I hate to think that he can’t use YouTube and [see] interesting things that I find interesting watching with him, learning with him.”

She added the ban had not considered potential consequences nor had the government provided education to parents to deal with it.

“I think it’s another sort of nanny state really,” she said. “We’re all busy parents, we all work, and we all manage our kids, and somehow you’ve got to do that. You can’t blame other people for it. You can’t blame social media for what’s happening to the world.”

I only know one person that got banned and it was only on one platform … it just shows you, they (the government) have no idea what they’re doing with it.

Her son Ethan said the age of the ban made no sense and friends were easily finding ways around it.

“They just rubbed dirt on their face and then did the facial scan and it just displayed them as 26, and they’re 13-years-old,” he said.

“It didn’t ban 99 per cent of people. I only know one person that got banned and it was only on one platform, YouTube. Besides that, nobody was really affected by it. I feel like most adults got affected by it more than actual kids, which I just find hilarious because it just shows you, they have no idea what they’re doing with it.”

Professor Third said the whole scheme could backfire and make the situation worse.

“I think there is a chance that children and young people will be more at risk than they’ve been previously and if they do get into trouble because they’re breaking rules, they’re less likely to reach out for help,” she added.

“I think we’re going to see children and young people migrating to sites that are not currently under the regulation and one of the problems here is that which platforms are covered by the legislation is at the discretion of the minister. This means that the minister is going to have to play a game of whack-a-mole every time children migrate to a platform. That platform’s then going to have to be covered by the legislation.

“We need really good education, not just for children, but also for adults. Children that we’ve worked with, and in my research centre we’ve worked with children across 80 countries around the world, we are consistently told by children that adults don’t understand why they go online, what they do there, and why it’s important to them.”

Stapleton believes the ban is too extreme and agrees it doesn’t focus on apps she regards as more of a problem.

“There’s got to be a way that they can allow the younger minds to have access to it while keeping them safe, instead of just cutting it down completely,” she said. “Will and his friends were born in 2010 and they can’t imagine life without their apps and their social media.

“He lost his Instagram, lost his TikTok, he lost his Facebook and he lost his Snapchat. So, basically the most regulated ones.”

She added her 17-year-old daughter was making the most of missing the ban.

“She’s making sure that her brother is aware that she does have access and he doesn’t,” she said. “So, it’s a good old time at our house at the moment.”

Main image of Susy Morales and Bronx by Central News.