With much in the way of pomp and false premises, the social media ban in Australia for those under 16-years-old was celebrated as a healthy incentive to encourage children to get off the screens and into the playgrounds. A stampede of reinvigorated youth would rush to libraries to borrow books. Sport would be taken up with vim and vigour. Conversations in person would, miraculously, take place with renewed vigour.Prime Minister Anthony Albanesehad treacly visionsof young Australians growing up playing in the outdoors with their friends, pursuing the game of “footy” and swimming and other sports, “discovering music and art, being confident and happy in the classroom and at home.”

Coming into effect from December 10 last year, digital platforms would, asannouncedby theeSafety Commissioner Julie Inman Grant, “have to take reasonable steps to prevent Australians under the age of 16 from creating or keeping an account.” This was not so much a “ban” as “a delay to having accounts.” Anassessmentby the Office of Impact Analysis cited the concerns of Queensland’s Chief Health Officer in stating that “existing studies provide compelling indications of possible negative links between unrestrained social media usage and the cognitive, emotional, and social wellbeing of young people.” However, the Queensland report also noted the benefits of social media, “including offering a sense of belonging and reducing isolation” and admitted that its findings “have not yet reached a consensus fully supported by peer-reviewed research.”

The ban was implemented despite a growing number of studies faulting the premise that social media is demonically harmful for the young. (These have been purposely or carelessly ignored by the office of the eSafety Commissioner and its various acolytes.) A2023 studyby Andrew Przybylski from the Oxford Internet Institute and his colleague Matti Vuorre examining well-being data of 946,798 people across 72 countries between 2008 and 2019 found that,

“Although reports of negative psychological outcomes associated with social media are common in academic and popular writing, evidence for harms is, on balance, more speculative than conclusive.”

Work by the respected Pew Research Center on children and their interaction with the internetfound much satisfactionwith social media in terms of making them feel more connected with friends and their social lives, providing a community of support and providing a place for creative expression.

More recent studies further bolster the argument against such ham-fisted regulations. Researchpublished this yearin theJournal of JAMA Pediatricsshed a more nuanced light on the field, with a cohort study of 100,991 Australian adolescents (grades 4-12) over 3 years revealing a U-shaped association in terms of detrimental or positive influences of social media use. In other words, it is not linear, with moderate social media use being “associated with the best well-being outcomes.” Not using social media, especially for boys, and using such platforms excessively, resulted in poorer well-being, though the authors express caution that “these findings are observational and should be interpreted cautiously.”

In December last year theJournal of Public Healthalsopublishedan interesting study by researchers at the University of Manchester on 25,000 11- to 14-year-olds over three school years.

“Our findings,” the authors note, “challenge the widespread assumption that time spent on these [social media and gaming] technologies is inherently harmful and highlight the need for more nuanced perspectives that consider the context and individual differences in their use.”

Critics such as Cyber Safety Solutions founder Susan McLean have alsopointedto the sheer futility of such bans.

“For every single bad thing that has been caused by a banned social media platform, I can provide you with a platform that is not going to be banned where the same thing has happened.”

Source: Global Research