People today agree on very little. But one thing unites them, regardless of their political beliefs: the idea that, since social media is harmful to children and teenagers, they should be banned from using it.
Australia in December banned under-16s from having accounts on platforms like Facebook, Instagram and TikTok. A dozen countries, including Britain and Spain, are now considering similar measures; so are lawmakers in many US states. More than 70 percent of Britons support banning under-16s from such networks, as do two-thirds of Americans.
The problem is that bans would do more harm than good.
These proposals stem from an understandable desire to protect young people and preserve their health. Parents have been shaken by tragedies in which social media has played a role - cases of children being tricked into sharing explicit photos of themselves, or taking their own lives after algorithms relentlessly fed them self-harm content.
Alongside these shocking examples is a second, broader concern: that social media could be harming an entire generation, making children more withdrawn, lonely and anxious. People are desperately trying to understand why today's youth seem unhappier than generations before them.
Even parents who are confident they can protect their children from more serious dangers worry that their offspring spend hours endlessly scrolling through meaningless memes. They would love to stop them, but they fear that their children will suffer if they are the only ones in the class who do not have accounts on these apps.
General bans seem like a simple solution, and politicians can't wait to reach for a measure that, for a change, meets with the approval of voters from all political camps.
However, policymakers should reconsider this approach. The question of whether social media causes mass harm is far from settled. There is growing evidence that it is bad for at least some children. But the claim that social media is causing major harm to young people’s mental health as a whole has only limited support in the evidence. And even if you were to wish to impose a ban on social media as a precaution until the final findings are available, such measures risk being counterproductive.
General bans seem like a simple solution, and politicians are eager to reach for a measure that, for once, is met with approval from voters across the political spectrum. However, policymakers should reconsider such an approach.
One problem is that bans are difficult to enforce; teenagers in Australia are already finding ingenious ways to get around them, by altering their faces to look older. It is also difficult to define precisely what social media is. Australia has not banned younger teenagers from messaging apps like WhatsApp or online multiplayer video games, because that would seem too draconian; scourges like cyberbullying will undoubtedly continue on those platforms.
Children who are blocked from mainstream networks may flock to obscure sites and become prey to predators. And those who manage to bypass the blocks may be less likely to tell adults if they encounter something disturbing, for fear of punishment.
Raising the age limit could only postpone the problem until the moment when young people turn 16 and suddenly gain full access to social networks, without much previous experience in using them.
Meanwhile, stricter age restrictions can create a false sense of security. It is for all these reasons that bans are often opposed by child protection organizations.
Moreover, advocates of bans ignore the fact that they would also deprive children of the benefits that social media brings. They are a blessing for children who feel isolated - whether because of where they live, their sexuality, or because their brains work differently than most. Social media can broaden young people's horizons, offering children from all backgrounds a window into new worlds and new people. Like it or not, these platforms are one of the main ways children today get information (and misinformation) about current events.
It used to be easy for young people to grab their parents' printed newspapers. They would sit and watch news programs broadcast before or after their favorite programs. Those days are gone.
Teenagers who are kicked off TikTok won't immediately start climbing trees or immersing themselves in books. Many will just sit languidly in front of consoles and streaming services for even longer.
One of the reasons they spend so many hours online is that their parents have long since stopped letting them "hang out" with their friends outside. Having already chased them indoors, adults should now think twice before further restricting their free time.
So what should we do? Instead of raising age limits, regulators should redouble their efforts to make social media more suitable for teens. Ideally, they would force internet companies to release more data about how teens use their products — so researchers can more easily measure the harm and devise ways to prevent it.
They should order tech giants to review features that keep children online for longer than is healthy, such as infinite scrolling interfaces and auto-playing videos. They should also require stricter moderation of content marketed to young users.
This could also include greater efforts to verify the age of social media users, to determine who needs to use them with additional protective measures, and who is an adult who does not need such restrictions.
Some observers find these ideas ridiculous. One of the reasons people are pushing for a higher age limit is the belief that social apps simply can't be made safer. But that ignores the direction things are heading.
The United States is gearing up for a series of major trials - years in the making - that will finally give those who claim they were harmed by social media as children a chance to present their case in court.
The European Union recently issued a preliminary ruling that certain design features of TikTok are "addictive" and threatened fines if they are not changed. Recently, many major social platforms have been encouraged to introduce special "teen" accounts with additional safeguards.
All of this will not eliminate every fear. But all of it together still represents some progress.
Politicians claim that their social media bans are the only responsible option. In reality, they are more like an attempt to avoid the kind of care that children deserve. If regulators can’t rein in social media — which has been around for more than two decades — what hope is there of allowing children to safely use new tools like artificial intelligence?
Young people have the right to participate in new technologies. Adults have a responsibility to do everything they can to make their time online as safe and meaningful as possible.
Translation: A. Š.
Bonus video:
