Proposed Social Media ban for under-16 kids

Do you support Social Media ban for under-16 kids?

  • Yes

    Votes: 29 53.7%
  • No

    Votes: 25 46.3%

  • Total voters
    54
Rather than social media bans, as with all other technology related kids issues, education is the only real way forward.

The more you "ban" something for kids, the more likely they'll find a way to circumvent it and check it out.
 
I agree some will get around it. Probably the biggest effect will come from children having an excuse not to be on it. Many don't really want to, but get the feeling it's social death if they don't.
It's a bit like the school phone ban. Some will bring burner phones to hand in, but the majority prefer the recess experience without
 
More and more Ive been saying lately that the internet is a cesspit - I cant imagine navigating the Fyre-fest it is these days if I was a minor.

I dont think bans work - the more you tell a teen they cant have it, the more creative they get. We've all done it ourselves.

As someone that is not a parent I say I would be a parent that would have strict no screen times (ie phones go in a box every evening etc) and no tiktok, YT channels etc but again, kids are sneaky and a lot more IT smarter than I am so they would get around it while I would be blissfully unaware and in denial

Again, as a non parent, I encourage people to talk to your kids and if they dont want to talk to you maybe a therapist to help bridge the gap.
 
The trouble with the kids are often more IT literate Than their parents. So they run rings around them

You can hide apps and browsing history etc etc

So unless there’s something enforceable like ID verification or it’s connected up with the Telco phone subscription services

) it won’t work

And besides what happened online it see or happen in the playground …
 
The trouble with the kids are often more IT literate Than their parents. So they run rings around them

The proposed ban is going to put the onus on the tech companies; there will be no penalty on the user side for non compliance.

I'm happy with a ban. Yes, some/many will get round it, but some/many will be shielded, and that's a good thing, and as @VPS says, one kid saved is a success.
 
I am not happy with the ban as the father of 15 year old, social media has repeatedly shown its reluctance to moderate/enforce poor behaviour standards, to the detriment of all, this does nothing to change that other than removing a small percentage of the victims who will feel alienated from their peers. Dialogue creates bridges, preventing that dialogue creates islands.
 
There are already age restrictions on many social media sites (usually age 13) and I've seen parents allow their their children to put in false dates of birth and then complain when there's an issue.
I'm still on the fence about a ban.
 
I am guessing that myID will be used for verification purposes, let’s see when the details come out

 
I am guessing that myID will be used for verification purposes, let’s see when the details come out

So to answer this, gaming in China is excessively strictly controlled by the government for under 18 year olds.

There suddenly was an increase in grannies playing games.
 
I'd say online forums, like AFF, are not social media.

It's going to be a total waste of money rolling this ban out. It will be easily circumvented. History has shown any attempts by government to ban things on the internet are easy to bypass.

I can't think of a way that this could possibly be enforced.
 
EXCLUSIVE OFFER - Offer expires: 20 Jan 2025

- Earn up to 200,000 bonus Velocity Points*
- Enjoy unlimited complimentary access to Priority Pass lounges worldwide
- Earn up to 3 Citi reward Points per dollar uncapped

*Terms And Conditions Apply

AFF Supporters can remove this and all advertisements

The question is what is the objective here? The vast majority of "child" suicides occur in the 15-17 age group, and difficult to tell from the data what the main contributing factors were in the 14 and under group, It seems from the data they were particularly high in 2020 and 2021, I wonder if there might have been other factors at play in those two years?


I wonder if we (as a society) after 10-15 years are now only really starting to appreciate the impacts and issues around social media and as a result are becoming better equipped to educate children in how to navigate this. Particularly over the next 5-10 years as some teenagers who used social media as teens are now becoming parents themselves. A 16 yo using social media in 2013, would now be 27. Some could have children who are already at primary school.

Thus I'm not sure what a ban will achieve. In fact looking at the stats, without exposure as early teens, it could become even more difficult to navigate when suddenly the flood gates open at age 16, where suddenly and tragically, youth really seem to start taking their own lives.

Then there's the complexity around peers of different ages in the same class and social groups.

TBH it seems to be more of a simple political solution to a complex problem than anything else.
 
You generally don’t wake up and just take your life, however. There are years and years of issues behind it.
While the headlines may be about suicide, as with car accidents, it’s the morbidity, not the mortality, that is the bigger number.

I’m in favour, but also suggest that forums are not social media in the sense of this ban. It’s about infinite scrolling apps offering up ongoing content via algorithms. It’s possible to be bullied here but difficult (due to moderation ratios and the limited scope of content and interaction and anonymity); especially compared to Facebook or similar.

So no, AFF is unlikely to get caught up in this, I’m sure those drafting laws will take on advice about selection.

And yes, I’m in favour because I spend a lot of my time trying to sort the problems from social media. It can present a very distorted world view while adding in a significant bullying aspect that is harder in real/physical life.
 
I absolutely don't se AFF as social media.
I have & always seen social media as a cancer, it run's ppls lives. I've never had any account of anything Facebook tiktaktoe nicten, only LinkedIn, to which I see as seeing what my peers are upto, professinally. not how many days a week one has avo on toast.

Gov says it'll be upto tech companies to enforce, yep bring in a ban & offshore all the policing. Ripper plan.

I have young boys so taking onboard others theories and practices on managing their social times or maybe now not so social times. Online.
 
Message boards like AFF and Whirlpool and Reddit absolutely fall under the definition of social media(they are an online forum where people have social interactions); they are in fact amongst the earliest types but just not super popular with todays youth. Likewise platforms like Facebook now skew to 40+ and aren't cool enough for tweens.

I dont have kids, but if I did I would have a dialogue re usage and not ban it. If your kid has android phone/tablet is very easy to use parental controls to set time limits, block certain sites. My best friends husband was admin for their 3 kids phones/tablets goin back to the 2010s; they had to earn screen time by doing their chores (he could remotely lock them out, limit them to school website until homework was done etc); turn off the wifi remotely.

I've been online since I was a teen in the early 90s back when it was all text based bulletin boards, then IRC then later windows ICQ, browser based message boards, geocities communities etc overtime people move to new platforms. My parents didnt understand the technology, had no idea who I was talking to, but a little common sense goes a long way.

Teen suicide is awful but I seriously doubt social media is the sole cause (an it existed well before socila media you just heard less about it). I imagine those kids are also being ignored/snubbed or bullied in person at school too; or experiencing abuse or other issues. You can ignore what people are saying about you online, but its more real when you have no one to have lunch with, or no one wants to work with you on a group assignment, or are taunting you on the bus etc.

There have always been been bullies in the real world and online. Take away access to social media apps and kids will find another way; they will likely still have phones (parents seem to think its essential) so can use sms, resort to old school behaviors like nasty notes in your locker, rumour spreading, ignoring, name calling, not inviting the weird kid to parties etc.

There will also be a negative unintended consequence for many kids who dont fit in at school; they will lose opportunity to find their community/likeminded friends online and therefore lose an element of support which may be the only thing helping them to survive the nasties at school,

Kids of course will use an older siblings/friends account or use false credentials to circumvent controls.

Its a slippery slope asking overseas based social media companies to verify identity. Who is seriously going to be stupid enough to give any site like Facebook or even AFF visibility of sensitive personal data like ID documents to prove age? Australia doesn't have a national ID card; and given the glitches with my.gov.au basic functions their platforms aren't sophisticated enough for 3rd party social medias companies to validate your age via it. Noting that few under age 15 work, so wouldn't even have a my gov account.

Education not censorship is the answer.

Would pefer the government focus more on requiring social media to better vet fake news / deep fakes, and forcing platforms to remove unauthorized content (i.e. when bullies/scammers create fake nude images or post real ones gained by hacking) in timely manner.

Finally parents should think before posting images or anecdotes about their kids online. Your baby cant give consent, but that baby will grow up and may be mortified you posted so embarrassing image/event online.
 
Reading the article today leads me to think that AFF is a social media service:


It refers to the following in the article:

The definition of a social media service, as per the Online Safety Act

An electronic service that satisfies the following conditions:
  1. 1.The sole or primary purpose of the service is to enable online social interaction between two or more end users;
  2. 2.The service allows end users to link to, or interact with, some or all of the other end users;
  3. 3.The service allows end users to post material on the service.
However, the article also refers to the following:

_________________________
We know that there will be an exemption framework for "low-risk" platforms as determined by the eSafety commissioner.
_________________________

So chances is that AFF can get exemption from eSafety Commissioner due to "low-risk", but Reddit cannot due to the scale of their forums available.
 

Become an AFF member!

Join Australian Frequent Flyer (AFF) for free and unlock insider tips, exclusive deals, and global meetups with 65,000+ frequent flyers.

AFF members can also access our Frequent Flyer Training courses, and upgrade to Fast-track your way to expert traveller status and unlock even more exclusive discounts!

AFF forum abbreviations

Wondering about Y, J or any of the other abbreviations used on our forum?

Check out our guide to common AFF acronyms & abbreviations.
Back
Top