What counts as social media? Instagram and TikTok? Obviously. Facebook and Twitter? Definitely. How about YouTube? LinkedIn?
This is what Labor is going to have to figure out if it’s serious about preventing children aged under 16 from having social media accounts, as flagged by Prime Minister Anthony Albanese’s in comments yesterday.
Banning teenagers from social media will, put simply, fail. It will not stop anyone in the “banned” age bracket from registering for and accessing social media. In fact, I guarantee a ban would only spur on teens trying to access these sites.
The only way a ban might be effective is if you force all Australians to submit private documents and ID on these platforms, and given privacy and hacking concerns, that likely wouldn’t work either.
For 6 News — an independent news outlet I founded when I was 11 years old, which employs teenage journalists — such a policy would cause us to lose around half of our already incredibly small team. We would be the only news outlet in Australia, in 2024, that is effectively forced by a government ban to cut 50% of our workforce because they’re not of the “appropriate age”.
For instance, our political editor Roman Mackinnon, who interviewed Anthony Albanese and Scott Morrison in 2022? Banned.
Our national affairs editor Austin Pollock, who has worked tirelessly on and off air to ensure 6 News becomes a 24/7 rolling news channel? Banned.
Our election reporter Maggie Perry, who’s covered plenty of elections and beaten many mainstream media outlets in making projections? Banned.
See how crazy that sounds?
As for the earlier question of what does and doesn’t count as social media, 36months.com.au — the Nova FM-run campaign arguing “Kids need more time to develop healthy and secure identities before they’re exposed to the minefield of social media”, which Albanese has endorsed — includes all the usual platforms, along with YouTube.
Banning 13- to 15-year-olds from YouTube is, in my view, pretty insane. It cannot be put in the same basket as other social media platforms. Without wanting to sound terminally online, I would go as far as to say YouTube is integral in our daily lives, with decades of content for any imaginable interest, including educational content. To ban access would prevent an entire age group from seeing information on, well, anything at all.
I’ve used YouTube for years, like most people my age. When I was 11 (under the supervision of my parents, of course) I created my own account and called it “HMV Local News”. That channel was renamed to 6 News Australia in 2020; the rest, as they say, is history.
Without YouTube, there would be no 6 News. We have been operating for more than five years now, but none of this — the interviews with prime ministers, the countless stories we’ve broken, the historic news we’ve covered — would have been possible under Albanese’s endorsed ban.
Post-remote learning, schools have continued to use YouTube as part of assignments, research and homework, which has undoubtedly helped many students (including myself) better understand a particular subject. Why ban that?
So what can be done?
Let me be clear: in no way do I doubt that social media can be harmful to kids, but the facts of the matter are that every person is different.
The responsibility for kids is, to a significant extent, on parents. Plenty of parents are not digitally literate, and I know this from seeing how my parents struggle with emails, let alone Facebook and Instagram. Parents need to supervise their kids to an extent they believe is appropriate, because they know their children best.
Social media cannot be ignored in 2024. It is now essential for work, for communication, and for some people’s mental health. To say that a 15-year-old is responsible enough to have a part-time job but not an Instagram account makes no sense.
I implore politicians who support these bans to actually speak to members of Gen Z. Given the Albanese-endorsed proposal supports banning LinkedIn (of all platforms) for under-16s spells it “Linked-In”, I struggle to imagine that discussions with actual young people have taken place so far.
I understand why politicians and media personalities are talking about this. Protecting kids online is important, and I don’t think anyone doubts that. But a flat-out ban? It just won’t work, it’d be incredibly difficult to police, and may very well do more harm than good.
Do you support a social media ban for children under 16? Let us know your thoughts by writing to letters@crikey.com.au. Please include your full name to be considered for publication. We reserve the right to edit for length and clarity.
