Editorial: Teens face social media ban

In recent years, there has been simmering discontent about the role of social media platforms and their impact on politics, media, society, and the lives of individuals. Now the Australian government has administered a shock treatment by enforcing a ban that bars under-16s from using social media apps and thus accelerated the momentum of a complex debate involving multiple stakeholders. The banned apps include Facebook and Instagram from the Meta stable, Alphabet’s YouTube, besides TikTok and X, which have a wide reach, and some of them are widely used by teens.

There is a near consensus that children could be vulnerable on social media platforms, and this has been found and established in several extensive research studies. Likewise, the majority opinion is that social media platforms, which are solely driven by profit motive, are not doing enough and, going by their past conduct, they may not do the right thing voluntarily. Opinion is, however, divided about what should be the course of action to tackle the issue. A blanket ban may appear like a silver bullet, but on closer look, it becomes obvious that it is fraught with not only implementation challenges but also hidden dangers.

Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and Julie Inman Grant, Commissioner of the regulator eSafety, have rightly diagnosed the problem when they averred that the decline in mental health among people, especially the impressionable and susceptible adolescents, is linked to their social media use. Secondly, unregulated access to social media could expose children and adolescents to cyberbullying, stalking, grooming, or recommendation engines that lead them to unwitting consumption of hateful or age-inappropriate content. Thirdly, the technologies designed to be addictive have an adverse effect on concentration, learning methods, and sleep patterns. Leave alone the teens, even aware and digitally literate adults are unable to resist or tackle social media addiction.

However, whether a ban is the right solution is a moot question. While parents and certain advocacy groups seem to welcome the move, experts are wary about not only its efficacy but also its wider implications. A lurking danger is the possibility of children ending up on unregulated platforms, which can be even more hazardous. Enforcing a ban can bring with it some problems, such as using technologies or creating fake profiles to circumvent the ban, which initiates and normalizes illegal means. Other developed countries, which are equally concerned about the issue, are looking at watertight controls, framing well-thought-through and rigorous rules, and their stricter enforcement backed by stringent punishments.

Like other countries, India too would be keenly watching how the Australian experiment will pan out. Given the Indian government’s propensity for excessive regulation, often bordering on surveillance and invasion of privacy on the one hand, and uncritical and reckless promotion of digital technologies on the other, any ill-advised and hasty misstep can have grave consequences. A blanket ban can only widen the digital divide in India, and the disadvantaged will suffer. Putting the onus on parents to monitor children’s online activity may not work, given their low digital technology knowledge. Unlike with some other important legislation of wider ramifications, which were done either without extensive consultation or as a token gesture or a perfunctory act, the government in this case ought to take all stakeholders into confidence and engage with them in finding the best solution.