It was all over the news last week: new action on an old problem. “Australia Bans Social Media for Children Under 16.”
Philosophically, it’s a slam dunk. The developing brain cannot be expected to handle influences like alcohol, pot, pornography, gambling, rock ‘n’ roll, (Sorry. Got carried away there). Unrestricted social media has surged to the top of the list.
Society’s job is to protect children. The question is, how?
Education
The traditional defense against all of these evils is parental teaching, supported by the mores of the wider society. Unfortunately, a force as insidious as social media is too powerful for even the average parent. More help is needed.
Bans
Partial bans such as restricted advertising have proved sort of effective. (It is my not-so-humble opinion that any substance or influence that is addictive should be banned from all mass advertising. Gambling would be my first candidate.) However, the fact that nobody in marketing get too upset about partial restrictions indicates to me that they probably don’t make enough difference to worry about.
A total ban is another thing completely, and immediately elicits screams of protest from two groups.
First, the “Freedom of Communication” types, who think anyone should be allowed to say anything they like. I have no use for that argument, because it is too convenient for the greedy and selfish people who don’t care about anything but their own income and freedoms.
Enforcement
The second argument carries more weight. “How can you police it?”
And the answer there is “You can’t…” But the “However…” is, mostly, you don’t have to. Just as every other law that is passed in a democratic society, the existence of a legal restriction has two functions. The simplest is that it gives the legal system tools to deal with egregious flouting of the law. That’s enforcement.
But much more important, the law gives the rest of us law-abiding citizens guidelines on how we should act. Specifically in this case, how we should bring up our children. Laws are made by the people, and a law isn’t enacted unless a large percentage of the people believe it is fair. For example, with the old ban on marijuana, the people said, “No, we don’t agree with the law,” and that made it impossible to enforce. So, the government changed the law.
School Cell Phone Bans
Provinces like B. C., Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Ontario have all taken steps towards banning cell phones in the classroom. Cries of “you’re adding to the teachers’ job” don’t hold water. Teachers have been dealing with cell phones for decades without the benefit of a definite set of rules. Now they have a law they can point to and say, “I didn’t make up the rule. If you have a problem with it, take it out of the classroom to someone who can deal with it.”
The Bottom Line
Australia’s actions came as a pleasant surprise to me. That’s a brave society, taking on a serious problem that no other government has dared to touch. Now parents concerned about their children can say, “Not my rule. It’s a law all Australians follow, and we happen to agree.” On a commercial and criminal scale, law enforcement now has tools to deal with flagrant abuse. At the very least, it will squash a lot of internet bullying and underage sexual abuse. It will probably save a few lives.
Oh, no doubt they’re going to have their problems. Some parts of it won’t work. Debugging will be required. But the whole world will learn from the experiment. My hat is off to Australia for leading the way.