A vital network or a time-killer – those are two conflicting descriptions that could be given to social media, and even among the young people here at Somerset Youth Parliament, there’s no uniform view on social media and a ban for under 16s. That’s why, in this article Iona, from the Advisory Group, argues that individual families should be free to choose for themselves on questions like this, and that at a time of widespread uncertainty at home and abroad, the leaders of our country should focus on fixing the things only they have power to sort out.
Social media affects us all. Even those of us who don’t use it much will have to admit that we are all influenced by it somehow, for better or for worse. Maybe there’s someone in your world who’s been spending precious revision time on social media, or perhaps you know people who struggle with face-to-face interactions and have had their life transformed by social media.
Either way, the discussion about banning social media shouldn’t actually be about social media’s net advantage or disadvantage to society. Because there are inevitably different opinions and unique effects for each individual, the question we should be asking is this: are these our life-choices, or are they the government’s?
I have always felt that social media can have a very negative impact on young people, both in terms of content / influence and also because it can be addictive and take up time from other activities. Therefore, I’ve been pleased to grow up in a household where my parents have essentially implemented a ban on social media like the government have been suggesting, and I’m grateful for it, to the extent that so far I am carrying it on for myself into adulthood. Nowadays, I do use YouTube sometimes for keeping up with some current affairs, but other than that, I’m just not a big social media user. And that leaves me with a lot of time for studies and hobbies.
With that background, I can understand the reasons for the government wanting to ban social media for under 16s. It can eat up study-time, so maybe a reduction in access is just what we need to boost our education. A lot of mental health issues are seen to come from overdoses of social media usage. So, personally, I do think that young people’s access to social media should be restricted.
However, in terms of a government ban, our first consideration should be whose responsibility it is to look after children and young people. And in my opinion, families need to take a more active role in preventing their own young people from accessing harmful content and ending up with problems online. My parents care about my mental health and about my life in general, and so made sure to help me to help myself to avoid the potential harms that evidence shows are posed by social media.
For us, in order to take this approach, we didn’t need the government to interfere in our private lives – and that’s essentially what this ban does. It’s a situation of overreach, where the government is trying to do things that, in my opinion, aren’t its job.
Children and young people are unique, which means that putting them into blanket categories like “under 16s” can be unhelpful. The government and lawmakers don’t know each child individually, like their parents should do. Therefore, it should be down to the families’ discretion to make a decision about if and when their children and young people are allowed to use social media. A family ban was beneficial for me, but another child and parents might decide that for them, social media doesn’t pose a big enough threat to warrant restrictions. Maybe they would decide on a time limit for social media usage, or use a special app to monitor access and protect against harm. It doesn’t seem fair that a rule should be imposed on everybody, just because some of us think that a ban is the best approach. Wouldn’t that be like introducing a national ban against the sale of peanuts just because some people have an allergy?
As others have pointed out, “It’s taking away our freedom”, because it removes the rights of parents to discuss social media with children and make their own choices. It’s actually a typical case of what I mentioned at the end of my last article, about people who want to use regulation not education.
Furthermore, the social media ban is not an isolated issue. There’s also the question about restricting VPNs and forcing people to identify themselves online, which definitely intrudes on everyone’s entitlement to privacy across all age ranges. It creates the potential for the state to track what you’re doing online. Do we think this sets a good precedent? And actually, although they are following Australia’s lead, there’s at least one other country where there have been discussions recently about restricting / banning VPNs and social media – and that’s Russia’s authoritarian regime.
So, although there may have been good intentions in banning social media to protect young people, this is a question for families, not the government. And that’s especially the case since there’s more to this than meets the eye. Wider internet-usage and privacy will be impacted due to identification requirements which would affect all age categories, not just under 16s. Everyone is unique, and there’s no one-size-fits-all solution. That’s one reason why people should have the freedom to choose sensibly about how they spend their time, and the government should focus on improving its proficiency within its own areas of responsibility, rather than taking on additional issues which are best left to individuals and families to decide.
Iona
What do you think about the social media ban?
We’re sure the conversation will continue as we get closer to changes coming into place. We want to know what you think more than anything else! What are your views on the social media ban, will it affect you and if so, how?
Let us know what you think by filling in our quick survey here.
