This appeared a few days ago:
Opinion
One book created panic about social media. But what if it’s bunkum?
Science journalist
October 12, 2024 — 5.00am
I’ve never felt all that comfortable in a tuxedo. But for some formal occasions, only a tux will do. One such event was a recent dazzling evening in Canberra. The kind where you rub shoulders with the nation’s best scientific minds while scoffing delicious (tiny) cuts of meat. On my table? An astrophysicist, an engineer and an environmental scientist. No, that’s not the start of a joke.
Across the evening, representatives from both sides of politics took to the podium reiterating just how important Australia’s scientific community is. They’re right to be proud! I often write about these scientists, sharing their stories of challenge, of triumph, of success. Of world-leading research.
But when the ministers spoke, I squirmed in my seat. It wasn’t the tux making me uncomfortable. It was the hypocrisy. In the same week as this ritzy feast, the Albanese government announced its intention to legislate a minimum age for accessing social media before 2025. The details – what age, what platforms, what method – remain unclear.
In May, the government set up a joint select committee to “inquire into and report on the influence and impacts of social media on Australian society”. It received more than 200 submissions. It’s yet to be completed. And yet, Labor has decided it will push age-limit legislation through before the end of the year. The move has bipartisan support. And, if social media is to be believed (oh god!), it also has backing from worried and exhausted parents.
What it does not have, broadly, is the support of scientists and experts. There are myriad arguments against a ban. The Queensland University of Technology’s Digital Media Research Centre submission to the committee says: “The concept of employing automated processes to manage access to social media is fundamentally misconceived, and we have concerns about this approach from a privacy, security, accuracy and inclusivity aspect.”
Australia’s eSafety commissioner has cautioned against limits, stating they could inadvertently introduce negative outcomes. And ahead of the NSW and South Australian government’s social media summit this week, the Australian Child Rights Taskforce released an open letter, signed by more than 120 academics and world-leading experts, suggesting a ban is “too blunt an instrument to address risks effectively”.
Why, then, is the government so reluctant to listen to those experts? The sceptic would say: politics. They’d be right, of course, but some of the blame surely lies with The Anxious Generation. The book, authored by US social psychologist Jonathan Haidt, has a terrifying – but scientifically flawed – message: childhood is being rewired by digital technologies, social media is one of the “big bads”, and this is leading to an epidemic of teenage mental illness. It suggests restricting access to social media until the age of 16.
Haidt’s arguments have been seized on by radio show hosts and pushed directly to the prime minister. Stories and anecdotes abound about mental illness, depression and anxiety. Parents are shamed into believing they’re doing something wrong by allowing kids to access screens and social media. Haidt’s own campaign asks parents to warn each other about the perils of screen time. And they do.
I get why. We see kids, glued to screens, for hours on end. We see them distracted. Inattentive. Something about it feels wrong. Why aren’t they playing outside, where surely no harm can befall them?
We’ve been primed to be scared of new technology. We can see this, over and again. This same techno-panic happened with Walkmans, computers and video games … even telephones – you know, the things that plug into a wall?
Which is why the ease with which the government has abandoned science and evidence on this issue is so concerning. It’s why it’s so galling to see Australian scientists celebrated one day and invisible the next. Fear and story are powerful things; Haidt wields them to perfection, eschewing hard science for digestible, simple messaging. And it works.
We have to get better at telling the stories of scientists. Because, you might not believe it, there’s a parallel universe where this conversation never occurred.
On basically the same day The Anxious Generation was released, another book hit the shelves. It was written by Bath Spa University psychologist Pete Etchells, and it had a title that does not inspire fear or panic: Unlocked: The Real Science of Screen Time (and how to spend it better).
It’s balanced. Nuanced. It explains that the scientific literature on digital technologies and young people is messy and uncertain, and how the problem of screen time, social media and our connection to devices is complicated. Those advocating for bans, like SA Premier Peter Malinauskas, suggest there’s “a growing body of peer-reviewed research that tells us it is doing children harm”. That is, sadly, ignoring a lot of peer-reviewed literature that says differently, as Etchells points out.
Yes, there are problems, but there are also solutions. However, they’re not quick fixes like social media age limits.
And in that universe, we listened to what many scientists and digital media researchers are saying. They’re not saying big tech companies are innocent, or that their apps are designed flawlessly. Like parents and educators, they’re concerned about the ways children navigate the digital environment.
They’re hoping for smart, evidence-based regulatory interventions and protection for children against abuse and exploitation. Some even back the idea of strengthening age verification, though only in conjunction with investment in age-appropriate digital spaces, co-designed with young people, and digital media literacy programs.
When I left the ritzy feast a few weeks ago, I stood in the chill Canberra air waiting for my Uber. The tux, by then, was looking a little dishevelled. Of course, I pulled out my phone. And I still felt uncomfortable.
Jackson Ryan is a freelance science journalist and president of the Science Journalists Association of Australia.
Here is the link:
A useful article explaining that, as with most things, the simple quick explanation is just too easy and really does not cover the nuances of what flows from social media usage. Quick political fixes are clearly not going to help and so we need more thoughtful research and analysis.
We also need to remember social media has only been with us for a decade or two and so, inevitably, there is a huge amount we do not know!!!!
This well be a long and winding journey into discovery I suspect! It will also be fascinating!
David.
1 comment:
The essential problem in monitoring use of social media is pretty much the same as for cross-platform harmonisation of health data - how to manage authentication of users' identities. The Australian Government sponsors a federated system of identity assurance through https://www.digitalidsystem.gov.au/tdif/accredited-entities of which, for example, financial institutions choose one or (I guess) set up their own.
There's a symposium in Melbourne today on Digital Healthcare.
Post a Comment