'We've already lost so much': The debate for and against a social media ban is unhelpful, experts say

Experts are weighing in on the social media ban for young people, with some for and some against. But others say this debate misses the whole point.

Some experts argue the social ban for young people will not make the online environment any safer. Source: Getty / Olivier Morin/AFP

Key Points

• Prime Minister Anthony Albanese is set to introduce legislation on a minimum age for social media access.
• The legislation is expected to ban children under 14 and require parental consent for 14 and 15-year-olds.
• Some experts are critical of the move, saying the social media ban will not make the online realm any safer.

Imposing a social media ban is not good or bad because it will have both positive and negative effects, some experts say. But they say the most dangerous course of action is doing nothing at all.

Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has announced the federal government will introduce legislation by the end of 2024 to enforce a minimum age for social media access.

A minimum age is yet to be determined, but an age-verification trial will be held to examine ways this could be delivered and a potential cut-off age, with children aged 14 to 16 under consideration.

"This is a scourge," he told ABC News on Tuesday.

Young Australians often experience online bullying and have access to material that can cause social harm and give rise to mental health consequences, the prime minister said.

Albanese told FM radio hosts Fitzy and Wippa on Tuesday that his "personal view" is that the minimum age should be set at 16.

"But I want to make sure that we don't end up with different systems in different states," he said.

"We want a national approach to an issue, which is a national issue."

Anthony Albanese describes social media as a "scourge". Source: AAP

The federal Opposition supports the push for social media age limits, as well as the Victorian and South Australian premiers, who had moved to introduce their own controls.

But some experts are critical of the move, saying it will not make the online realm any safer.

Social media ban for children a 'reckless' and a 'band-aid solution'

The Australian Association of Psychologists director Carly Dober says a ban distracts from the real issues at hand.

"It's a bandaid response to a very complicated and deeply entrenched issue," she told the Australian Associated Press.

"The fundamental issues around how the internet can be unsafe for people has not changed.

"There's still hate speech and deeply misogynistic, deeply racist, deeply sexist content online ... [children will] still be targeted with very sophisticated ads designed purely to make them consume different products and services."

New research from the ANU shows regular social media use is negatively impacting the life satisfaction of Year 10 and 11 students across Australia. Source: Getty / Maskot

It also overlooks the benefits online spaces can offer to young people, especially those from marginalised communities.

"LGBTQI people, refugee youth, disabled youth — they find community in different spaces if their experience at school or in their communities isn't so welcoming," Dober said.

"What happens for those young people who are then locked out of their valuable online communities?"

Daniel Angus, the director of the digital media research centre at Queensland University of Technology, described the proposal as a "reckless decision".

"[It] threatens to create serious harm by excluding young people from meaningful, healthy participation in the digital world, potentially driving them to lower quality online spaces, and removing an important means of social connection," Angus wrote on LinkedIn.

"It also means that very large online platforms are going to be let off the hook in making necessary reforms to the quality of content on their platforms, as this simply places a gate at the door rather than improving what's on the other side."

A ban 'not good or bad'

Other experts say arguments against a ban — that it would allow tech giants off the hook in reforming platforms, that it wouldn't be teaching young people to use social media responsibly, or that it would remove an important connection for marginalised young people — are not reasons not to implement one.

"You can walk and chew gum at the same time," Professor Ben Edwards at the ANU's Centre for Social Policy Research told SBS News.

"A ban isn't good or bad; it's how you implement it. Yes, we should help and train young people to use social media responsibly. Yes, we should have greater expectations of social media companies. But yes, we should also try to implement something that might have some positive benefits, but then closely monitor the implications of that for our children and young people."

New research from the ANU shows regular social media use is negatively impacting the life satisfaction of Year 10 and 11 students across the nation.

TikTok, Reddit, and Twitch users who identified as male or female all had lower life satisfaction than those who did not use these platforms.

Anthony Albanese says social media causes social harm, and tech giants have obligations to protect young people. Source: AAP / Joel Carrett

The study found non-binary students who regularly use social media reported the lowest levels of life satisfaction, but those who used X reported higher levels of life satisfaction, which may be because those on X are finding a sense of community, said Edwards, who was also the lead researcher.

Dr Ferdi Botha, senior research fellow at the Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research at the University of Melbourne, agrees social media has both positive and negative implications, and hence a ban would also.

"Social media is a tool to make connections but it's also a source of stress and psychological distress among people," he told SBS News.

He said the Household, Income and Labour Dynamics in Australia (HILDA) Survey, which collects valuable information about economic and personal well-being from more than 17,000 Australians each year, revealed an "increased prevalence of psychological distress prevalence" at around 2010 and 2011, especially in the 15 to 24 age bracket, which" coincides very strongly with the rollout of social media platforms".

Botha says while a minority of people, especially marginalised groups, would be negatively impacted by the ban, "the overwhelming consensus is that it would have a positive effect".

'We've lost so much'

Edwards said the most dangerous option when it comes to social media is doing nothing at all.

"If you look at how teenagers operate currently, we've already lost so much. A lot of the social interaction, the capacity to talk to someone, to be real with one another outside of digital media communication, is much more limited these days. It is hard to manage it and parents want to help. And this legislation would give them permission to say no."

Edwards believes a trial ban on social media for young people should include non-binary and neurodivergent individuals. It should also be closely monitored to assess both the positive and negative effects.

"If we do find adverse effects for some groups in society, we need to consider what extra additional protections we can put in place to support these young people," he said.

"This monitoring would give us much more robust information on which to make these policy decisions.

"And then we'll be able to decide on whether this is the right thing for our society and our young people."