“Aunty Monnie, can we look at your Instagram?” “Aunty Monnie, why aren’t there any pictures of us?” “Aunty Monnie, can we post a photo of us on your Instagram?”
My nieces and nephews have me wrapped around their respective little fingers and so it was an easy, “yes” from me to their request to briefly commandeer my social media.
As we were posing for selfies, I told the kids that—due to a recent law passed by the federal parliament—they would not be allowed their own Insta accounts until they were 16.
Suddenly, this cabal of youngsters became ready to overthrow the government, with Little Miss Six leading the charge. It was a sight to behold and while they might be in primary school, it’s never too young to teach them about political engagement.
I must admit, I am conflicted about the government’s social media ban.
On the one hand, I think social media is no place for children, particularly young girls. The vicious cycle of taking and posting photos and eagerly waiting for likes and comments, ie seeking validation from others based on appearance alone, is so incredibly detrimental to the development of their knowledge that they are infinitely valuable and worthy of love. For example, the marvellous work of Professor Jonathan Haidt demonstrates the correlation between the launch of cameras that are able to take selfies and the introduction of Instagram with an unprecedented mental health crisis amongst young girls. Allowing what he calls a “phone-based childhood” to replace a “play-based childhood” was a dangerous experiment on our young people, the side effects of which we will be facing for generations. I think the more we can do to delay entry into the world of social media, the better.
But on the other hand, I am uncomfortable with government enforcing a rule that really should be enforced by parents, because it replaces the role of parents to decide what is best for their children and lets them off the hook in setting appropriate boundaries for their behaviour. It is the job of parents—not elected officials—to make rules about social media and other internet use. Laws like this undermine the role of the family and replace parental authority with that of the State. Additionally, we should be wary of getting too comfortable with any law that can amount to censorship.
On top of this, there is also the disproportionality of the government’s concern over this particular risk to children.
The government can easily recognise the potential risk of digital platforms like Instagram and Snapchat and has willingly passed a stringent law to require these platforms to have age verification enabled, but refuses to acknowledge the risk of pervasive pornography websites, nor take any steps to restrict their use, even though these can cause much more damage to a child’s overall wellbeing. During the Senate committee hearings into the bill, Senator Matt Canavan extracted an admission from the representative from the Australian Communications and Media Authority that Pornhub would not be included in the scope of the bill’s ban, because “it’s not seen as a social media platform.”
What’s more, the harmful impact of pornography on young people is as plain as day. From the increase in violent, sexual assaults being perpetrated by young boys because their early exposure to violent pornography has made them consider this acceptable, to the distortion of healthy sexual behaviours, to the attack on the dignity of women, the pandemic of porn has been utterly devastating. Even the New South Wales parliament has formally acknowledged this, with a groundbreaking inquiry into the effects of harmful porn currently underway.
If the government was serious about protecting young people from online dangers, porn should be at the top of its list. And it is possible. Porn sites could be restricted in a similar way that TikTok requires age verification and regulators were able to geoblock reports of Cardinal George Pell’s criminal trial and conviction prior to his unanimous acquittal by the High Court. Sure, some savvy kids will be able to circumvent these obstacles, but many will not.
And it’s not only in relation to digital platforms that the government is turning a blind eye.
The government is also lagging behind so many other countries in placing any restrictions on giving puberty blockers to children. With news this month that the UK has placed an “indefinite” ban on puberty blockers for kids, countries like Norway and Sweden doing the same, and even the New Zealand Ministry of Health calling for “a more precautionary approach” in favour of “a holistic assessment determining the full spectrum of needs a young person may have, including social and mental health,” state and federal governments refuse to conduct an inquiry, much less restrict medical “professionals” from encouraging their use.
As I said at the top of this article, I am more than happy for social media use for kids to be delayed. But this should not amount to merely virtue signalling from a government wanting to give the veneer of caring about the wellbeing of kids; they deserve better than that, and we should expect better.