Is a social media ban worth its buck?
South Australia is edging towards a social media ban on young people, but is this necessary?
In May, the South Australian Government launched a feasibility study for a proposed ban on social media access for people under 16 years of age following mounting concerns about young people’s mental health.
This comes after the February 2023 decision to ban the use of mobile phones in all South Australian public schools, responding to reports of ‘out of control’ bullying and deteriorating student performances in schools.
The government aims to capitalise on growing momentum nationwide for e-safety reform by moving beyond classrooms and into the streets and homes of young people.
Despite a 29% fall in violent incidents since 2022 (the phone ban having only taken effect in later 2023), it is unclear whether extending the phone ban to a social media ban will support young people’s mental health. Scientific causation has yet to be proven for the original ban.
But, is a social media ban worth its buck?
Why is South Australia doing this?
Premier Malinauskas announcing the proposed social media ban inquiry | abc.net.au
While surviving COVID-19 better than other states, South Australia’s public schools took a heavy beating. The triple threat of COVID-19 restrictions, teacher shortages and high turnover rates caused young people’s performances to slide, and even saw them ditch school in high numbers.
The 2023 Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA), published by the OECD, found that between the 2000s and 2022, average maths scores fell from 535 to 465, reading comprehension fell from 537 to 492 and science dropped from 532 to 498.
Alongside reporting of increased bullying in public schools, these figures resulted in a panic to turn things around – and quickly! This prompted the government’s original mobile phone ban in schools, whilst also opening the door to further regulation.
“This ban is about better academic outcomes for students free from distraction, improved social skills development, and reduced cyber bullying”
The social media ban - what we know
Apps such as Instagram, TikTok, Facebook and others are likely to be subject to this ban.
The Malinauskas Government appointed former High Court of Australia Justice Robert French AC to organise a nation-leading inquiry in May. The inquiry will inspect how a social media ban via ‘legal and regulatory and technological pathways’ can be created and enforced across states and territories. The inquiry has no official deadline.
The social media ban mirrors other attempts from across the globe, such as the one in Florida, which banned access to social media for people under the age of 14. In South Australia, parental consent will be required for those aged between 14 to 16.
“I am determined to ensure as a government we are doing everything we can to protect our children.”
It is unclear what the final proposal will look like, with the inquiry likely examining what is and isn’t social media, how restrictions will look and be enforced, and if people will be required to supply identification to access social media.
Does South Australia have the power to do this?
A social media ban may require both young and adult people providing sensitive information to big tech or government providers | canva.com
The South Australian proposal has gained the support of the Federal Government and state governments of New South Wales, Queensland and Victoria. These states have united to increase the minimum age (currently 13 years of age) to create a social media account.
The process to regulate social media on a state-by-state level creates a question of constitutional ambiguity between the powers of the state and Federal Governments.
Regulating media falls within the powers of the Federal Government. South Australia may argue that the social media ban is to regulate the mental health of young people – however experts generally agree that geo-located blocks would be impossible to enforce and potentially unconstitutional.
This ban would require people to provide their personal information to either government agencies or big tech companies (which have a record of data leaks) such as Meta. This would likely create security concerns amongst young people – and adults who could be caught up in this process.
What is Albo doing?
Prime Minister Anthony Albanese taking a selfie with a group of children | facebook.com
The Federal Government has welcomed the proposal by South Australia, with the Prime Minister echoing parents’ and caregivers’ concerns about the safety of social media for young people:
“Parents are worried sick about what their kids have access to online, it is a major social issue in this country.”
The Albanese Government has already committed $6.5 million to pilot ‘age assurance technologies’ that would prevent children from accessing inappropriate and harmful online content. This pilot began in March last year. Additional funding for a $43.2 million communications package will be used to respond to ‘emerging and evolving online harms’ and another $1.4 million is earmarked to fund the Office of Online Safety watchdog for two more years.
It is noted however, that the Federal Government lost its bid in a Federal Court to restrict the publication of harmful social media content on X following stabbing videos that emerged from West Sydney during the Orthodox Church attack.
Is the social media ban a good idea?
Experts argue that young people are more knowledgeable about the risks of social media than adults give them credit for | Mariia Shalabaieva
Government agencies such as the Office of the e-Safety Commissioner have popularised the idea that restricting access to social media will provide substantial positive mental health outcomes for young people.
However, not everyone agrees with this. In an ABC interview, Jackie Hallan, interim CEO of ReachOut Australia (an online youth mental health support organisation) argued that young people are knowledgeable about the risks of social media and instead use it for support.
“We’re hearing that young people are using social media in positive ways to get support.”
“For example, knowing that in some cases your teen might be turning to social media and technology to help them cope when something is going on for them – rather than the tech being the issue – can be a starting point.”
Two recent reports published by ReachOut Australia revealed a large disconnect exists between young people and adults about the role of social media in the issues affecting young people.
According to ‘What parents worry about’ approximately 59% of parents and caregivers believed that social media usage was a primary concern for young people’s stresses – with 35% identifying it as a top concern.
Yet in the separate report ‘What are you worried about’, which asked young people directly about the issues affecting their mental health, they held it to be the least of their concerns. Approximately 75% of young people were concerned about the future, 72% were concerned about study stress, and 52% were concerned about money and cost of living. Only 4% reported social media as a primary concern; it ranked 24th overall.
Both reports demonstrate that whilst adults view young people’s general stress to be a manifestation of social media, young people are escaping to social media from pre-existing stresses regarding study, money and insecurity over their futures.
Catherine Page Jeffery, a media and communications lecturer at the University of Sydney, believed this blanket ban would only harm young people and prevent them from engaging in the evolving digital space – putting them at disadvantage.
“Banning things might seem like the easy answer, I think it rarely is.
“We need to be legislating, to hold some of these super powerful platforms to a better standard – and that seems like a better approach than legislating to actually deny young people the right to participate online.”
Fight screen time, not young people
Young people use social media to connect with others across the globe | canva.com
Proponents of a social media ban, including e-safety advocates, have argued that chronic social media use has impaired young people’s social development. This statement is true – to an extent.
Social media is an element of the larger problem – screen time – which studies have actually investigated. For instance, a Japanese longitudinal study tracked 80,000 mother and child pairs and found a clear link, with screen time correlating to diminished skill development. A Beyond Blue survey in Australia found more than 2000 teachers identified mental health problems emerging from young people’s excessive phone screen time.
It can be argued that social media holds a significant chunk of a young person’s daily screentime and therefore infer that a ban on social media will stop people from being attracted to screens. This argument is both wrong and seriously out of proportion.
Firstly, when examining the issue from a psychological lens, social media, television and even video games are the same thing: screen time. According to the ‘Theory of Mind’ young people develop automatic skills (simple actions such as opening door handles) vs infrequent skills which require active concentration of the person, such as communicating with people of different values. Screen time is inherently the issue at play.
Scarlett, a student at the University of South Australia majoring a Bachelor of Psychology (honours) added further.
“The ban aims to facilitate social connection; However, we have to ask ourselves will banning actually improve social connection or decrease it. For example, social media is the main way that youth organise their plans with friends or find out about local events.
“Furthermore, the ban would limit many areas of access, how is an entrepreneur suppose to set up a business if they can’t have social media. How is someone supposed to connect with like-minded individuals if they live in a gated community?
“Those that struggle to connect with individuals due to shyness or anxiety may use social media to develop that communication skill.”
Social media by definition, is a digital communications tool that enables young people to engage in modern culture and society. The sour apple instead is the fact that social media algorithms prevent its users from encountering different values sets which force brains to develop both communication and emotional maturity skills.
Secondly, let’s say hypothetically most young people spent more than five hours a day watching television. Would the government ban television for young people in their own homes? No, that would be both outrageous and an open threat to our system of liberalism in Australia.
By banning social media for young people, you are denying them a right to participate in daily life and understand the wider world before them and inhibiting their ability to develop digital communication skills – effectively continuing the cycle of poor communication.
Komal Kumari, an Indian student in Adelaide, relies on social media to understand the events of her home country and her place in Australia:
“I use social media to keep in touch with what’s happening in India. It connects me to friends, family and my culture. Without social media I can’t do any of these things.”
“How am I meant to know if someone is safe or not? How am I meant to check up on family?”
Regulate. Don’t Ban!
This article does not aim to obstruct against any reform of social media, reform is needed! As studies indicate, young people spend too much time on social media instead of face-to-face with other people.
The original phone ban in schools itslf is a positive step; for six hours a day it forces students to be face-to-face with peers. This is enough and other states should follow these measures. Instead, governments should work with big tech companies to develop greater accountability in social media algorithms. In short, social media algorithms must adopt the best interests of their user in the content it promotes.
Unfortunately, this proposed ban confirms an inherent anxiety amongst young people that adults are failing to listen to their concerns. If South Australia wants to help young people – its best they ask them directly.