I have worked with teenagers for many years, as a teacher and school counselor in NSW public schools, and now in private practice as a psychologist and cyberpsychology educator for all ages.
I started exploring cyberpsychology in 2009 in my Year 10 boys and video games psychology honors thesis. And my Masters thesis examined self-control and problematic smartphone use in Year 7 students.
I see firsthand some of the shocking, sad, and sometimes preventable problems that arise from developing minds accessing powerful technology too young, too often, and without appropriate supervision.
But I don’t believe that hasty plans to ban teens from social media are an effective or meaningful way to address concerns about the youth mental health crisis.
That said, I also believe in the right of parents to choose to delay the introduction of smartphones and social media, and that reducing peer pressure to stay on social media until at least high school is a would be a great first step that we can take together tomorrow. .
These are some of the reasons why I disagree with the current ban plans – with Prime Minister Anthony Albanese’s government introducing legislation to the House of Representatives on Thursday morning.
Reason #1. The research on social media and youth mental health is actually quite murky and inconclusive.
If you’ve read (or pretend to read) Jonathan Haidt’s hefty. Anxious generationyou will think that the research is all put together. That’s far from it, even Professor Pat McGorry agrees.
We need to explore the complex, dynamic ways in which individuals use social media, not just track time spent – which is like counting digital calories without considering nutritional value.
I have worked with teenagers for many years, as a teacher, a school counselor and now in private practice as a psychologist and cyberpsychology trainer for all ages. I do not believe this plan is an effective way to address mental health concerns among young people
2. Social media use, like ‘screen time’, isn’t one thing – it’s a million things, some of which are positive
Reducing all ways of using social media to binary notions of good versus bad is not only unhelpful, but also shows how little adults understand the complexity, usefulness, and benefits of social media.
When we use it intentionally, and in powerful ways to align with our goals and values, research like this shows positive results. There’s already a range of tools to help manage usage, from parental controls to block and mute buttons.
Bans ignore the benefits (e.g. watching Parliament Question Time on YouTube!) and create more risk and marginalization for vulnerable, isolated young people who use social media to good effect.
3. Effective age verification technology does not exist (yet) and will be expensive to build and maintain.
We are trying to legislate a solution that has been abandoned in the countries that have tried it.
To verify someone’s age, we need to verify their identity – this means people over 16 will also need to prove their age through these ‘age gate’ systems – so baby boomers will also have to navigate verification to use Facebook.
This sets up third-party technology companies to store identity documents and create a digital bank vault that could become a target for hackers and scammers. It’s called the World Wide Web, and bypassing a geographic border is as easy as VPN.
Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and Communications Minister Michelle Rowland are expected to introduce legislation banning social media use for under-16s to Parliament today
4. Bans do not teach young people skills to navigate digital spaces.
Like any complex skill, learning to use social media requires role modeling, repetition, and rehearsal.
As with pool safety and learning to swim or drive, we need to support young people in learning dynamic ways to participate in social media spaces safely and intelligently and to manage a range of circumstances and situations.
Young people learn through experience, not just through theory (or through some guest speaker sessions at the meeting). By creating sandboxed versions of social media platforms, like the recently launched new Instagram Teens accounts, they can learn with digital training wheels on.
We don’t give kids the keys to the SUV at age 16 and let them drive. We also didn’t ban cars when people had tragic accidents. We have established safety standards, developed more traffic rules and changed licensing rules.
5. A ban could give parents permission to move away from digital wellness practices – and that will reduce pressure on big tech companies to prioritize accountability.
The ban may inadvertently allow parents to abdicate their responsibility for monitoring and guiding their children’s online behavior.
We didn’t grow up with this technology and it has overwhelmed many parents when it comes to confidence in managing devices, setting boundaries and navigating the conflicts that often arise.
Parents need more practical support to tackle these issues, not weak, fear-fueled laws that are unenforceable.
Making ‘social media’ illegal does not stop children from accessing it. They will do this in more covert and risky ways, wandering into dark spaces with even fewer trust and safety measures than the big players, once again overwhelming overwhelmed and exhausted parents.
Even if Parliament ignores the recommendations of its own Joint Committee and these laws are passed before Christmas, it will still be more than 12 months before the legislation can reasonably come into force.
There are a number of practical actions 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. This can best be achieved through thoughtful legislative design, rather than desperate efforts. Let’s act wisely to protect people effectively.
Jocelyn Brewer is a Sydney-based psychologist and founder of Digital Nutrition.