Australia has become the first country in the world to try and formally legislate a solution to the problem of social media’s impact on children. Earlier this month, Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese said his government would pass a law mandating a minimum age for accessing social media later this year. While the minimum age is yet to be determined, Albanese indicated that the line will be drawn between 14 and 16 years of age.
The excessive influence of social media on the young, particularly pre-teens and teenagers, is not just an Australian problem but a global one. The mental health consequences for young people leading from overindulgence in social media—China even runs social media “de-addiction” camps—are well documented.
Then there are the more sinister aspects of social media—from cyberbullying to stalking to grooming by predators and paedophiles to outright phishing and scams. Given that most countries have recognised these challenges and that every government in the world has the power to make laws to control this, one may ask why it has fallen to Australia to take the lead in trying to find a legislative solution to the problem.
Challenges to age restriction
Many countries have tried to pass a law restricting access to social media for children or are in the process of doing so. In all cases, such attempts have faced similar challenges. The foremost, of course, is the downside of restricting access —whether based on age or other criteria—to social media in particular or the internet in general.
Digital rights activists have argued, with some justification and evidence, that doing so would deprive youngsters of access to meaningful information and support. Infringement of minors’ digital rights was the hill on which the European Union’s attempt to legislate access restrictions eventually died.
In fact, Australia’s e-safety commissioner had warned the government earlier that putting access restrictions would drive more dangerous online activity underground. Activists also argue that far from having a deterrent effect, any legal ban will only lead youngsters to mask their online activity, which can have more serious consequences.
The other is technical. No country in the world has been able to come up with an effective technical solution to ensure the implementation of an age verification mandate. In fact, all the big tech companies that operate social media platforms such as Meta, Google, and X—all have minimum age requirements (13 years in many cases) to open an account. But even they have not been able to ensure that this is not circumvented.
The key
At a more fundamental level, though, legislation does not provide satisfactory solutions to societal problems. Governments everywhere, with justification, have imposed age-based restrictions that can inflict harm on either the user or others. This is why, everywhere in the world, there are minimum age requirements for being allowed to drive or to consume alcohol. However, the presence of legal deterrents has not managed to address the issues of underage drinking, for instance, or unlicensed driving, a rampant problem in India.
Or take a recognized social evil like child marriage. This is illegal everywhere in India and attracts deterrent punishment, but the practice is still rampant in many communities and regions. India constitutionally prohibits discrimination based on age, gender, caste or creed, but such discrimination is widely prevalent in our society.
Laws cannot solve all problems. We have laws on the right to food and the right to education, but that does not mean that no one in the country goes hungry or that everyone gets access to education. Eventually, lasting solutions to societal problems are achieved only through widespread social consensus and action.
#Legislation #panacea #societal #problems