Social media: Protecting children - but how?
Australia has repeatedly made the headlines with its bizarre laws. In certain parts of the continent, for example, trade with pirates is prohibited or the possession of potatoes is strictly regulated at 50 kilograms; in periods of prolonged drought, the population is prohibited from creating artificial rain clouds. Even the Aussies probably smile at these legal capers.
But what the Australian government decided at the end of 2024 is deadly serious: by 102 votes to 13, parliament passed a law that denies children and young people under the age of 16 access to social media. How should this radical step be assessed? Questions and answers.
1. how should this ban work technically?
Nobody knows. In any case, it is not yet clear how age verification and data protection aspects are to be technically implemented. The Australian government has passed the ball back to the social network operators. They now have just under a year to implement the requirement.
However, it is doubtful how effective this will be. VPN technology, which hides your location and anonymises your internet connection, makes it very easy to circumvent such bans. So if you are under 16 and really want to use Tiktok or Instagram, you will easily find a way round it.
A ban that is easy to implement immediately is of no use to anyone. Instead, the platform giants need to be more strictly regulated by the state.
2 What do children and young people like about social media?
Social media is an integral part of children and youth culture. «Nine out of ten young people use social networks daily or several times a week,» confirms the latest James Study 2024 . Children use social media to test themselves and their impact on others in their search for their own identity. They also use it to keep in touch with their peers or follow a wide variety of idols.
If you don't want to present yourself, you can still actively participate by liking, sharing and commenting. It never gets boring as there is no end to the network feeds. Oh yes, and engaging with social media is also fun, especially as using it stimulates the brain's reward system.
3. what negative influences does social media have on children?
Most networks are officially permitted from the age of 13. But nobody checks the entries because the operators have no interest in doing so. They benefit particularly strongly from the young target group because they spend the most time on their networks. Age verification would only present inconvenient hurdles that reduce revenue and reach. It is therefore intentional that children and young people find it difficult to break free from the digital maelstrom.
According to a survey, around 80 per cent of parents in Switzerland would be in favour of a legal initiative like the one in Australia.
Spending time on social media such as Tiktok also triggers many bad feelings, such as dissatisfaction with one's own body, shame, envy or jealousy. Children come into contact with hatred, lies, insults or paedophilia far too early. This is at the expense of children's light-heartedness. That is why regulations are also being considered in other parts of the world.
France has already raised the age of social media use from 13 to 15 in 2023, while other countries are still weighing up the options. German-speaking regions point to the EU's Digital Service Act, which is intended to make social network operators more responsible. According to a survey by media company Tamedia, around 80 per cent of parents in Switzerland would be in favour of a legal initiative like the one in Australia.
4 What are the arguments against a state ban?
If you want to protect your children from social media, you can already prohibit them from using it - without government regulations. However, this is laborious, conflict-ridden and extremely difficult to implement. A state ban would therefore be a relief. On the other hand, this could be misinterpreted to mean that parents are no longer responsible for their children's use of social media.
Experts also point out that children and young people could then migrate to dubious internet zones such as the darknet, which we have even less control over.
5. do we really need a government ban like in Australia?
Such a ban in no way solves the fundamental problems that these platforms cause. Originally, social media was created to connect people with each other. Since they were primarily designed to maximise profits, they have continued to develop their dubious methods. They use psychological and technological strategies to keep users' attention for as long as possible.
We know that hardly anything increases dissatisfaction in our society as much as social media. We know that they have succeeded in sowing distrust of traditional media through well-oiled filter bubbles. We also know that these companies are doing far too little to combat hate speech, fake news, social bots and violence.
Children should be able to learn how to use social media in a good and healthy way and be empowered to do so.
The reason: anger and excitement are the elixir that flushes money into their coffers. That's why Meta boss Mark Zuckerberg recently sacked the fact-checkers in the USA. In future, the community should settle controversies in the comments themselves. So there will be a lot of bickering. Anyone who thinks this is harmful will be accused of censorship.
Hardly any state today takes decisive action against these unfair practices. The fear that platforms such as X and others could mobilise public opinion against the government is often too great. Yet governments have every reason to act, as these unregulated networks are constantly sawing away at the thin bones of democracy.
A ban would have negative consequences
Conclusion: Banning social media for children under the age of 16 is undoubtedly an important political signal to digital network operators, who are difficult to regulate. And the fact that platforms such as Tiktok can cause serious harm to young people is largely undisputed.
However, such a ban would have negative consequences for children and young people in this country. It would not only contradict children's rights, which guarantee them free access to information, but would also raise the question of which channels they should use in future to access information relevant to them. And what use is a ban that is easy to circumvent if children continue to grow up in an over-stimulated society that remains characterised by scandalisation, black-and-white thinking and the manipulation of social media?
We therefore need two things: firstly, children should be able to learn how to use social media in a good and healthy way and be empowered to do so. Secondly, we need stronger, politically binding framework conditions. The state must protect all its citizens, children and adults alike, more effectively from the perfidious mechanisms and business models of the platform giants.
