Social Media Ban for Children and Adolescents: Moving Beyond Binaries

Introduction

Social media effects can rarely be discerned as black and white, particularly after the Covid-19 pandemic which has increased our presence, availability and lifestyle in the online mode multi-fold. The pertinent question of whether social media should be banned for children and adolescents has rapidly evolved from a uniform public concern to an oft debated and somewhat contentious issue. This debate has further been intensified following the somewhat recent decision by Australia which became the first country in the world to impose a blanket ban on use of social media platforms such as Facebook, TikTok, Snapchat, Instagram, X (Formerly Twitter) etc. for individuals under 16 years of age, and legislation for heavily penalising the technology companies owning these platforms in case they fail to take reasonable actions to prohibit having accounts or their use by under-16s (https://www.unicef.org.au/unicef-youth/staying-safe-online/social- media-ban-explainer?srsltid=AfmBOooEMMOrRlzP_ 5SXE7Zke5evIvsX-xCaJIxSkD8INlBg8jTa9x_8). Following this, in the last few months some other countries have continued with this initiative of either banning under-16s (Indonesia) or proposing laws for the same (Spain, Norway, Austria, France, United Kingdom, Brazil).

In the Indian context, recent reports have emerged from various parts of India where some states like Karnataka, Goa and Punjab are mulling restricting access to social media for children below 16 years of age. Although the concerns around use of social media in individuals under 16 years of age are apropos, binary responses in the form of restricted access or a complete ban may not be justified for our young population owing to multiple factors. ¹

The debate surrounding the imposition of restriction/ban on the use of social media by children and adolescents has been viewed as a binary concept i.e. “it is” versus “it is not” potentially/actually harmful. Hence it may be useful to briefly review the evidence related to both these concepts.

A Bird’s Eye View of the Crisis: Social Media Use is Harmful!

Social media use has been shown to be associated with a range of mental health problems, especially in those who are vulnerable either due to socio-economic factors, inherent predispositions (such as neurodiversity) or being from minority populations and so on.

Research on impact of internet and social media use on mental health has shown a significant surge in the past one decade with many studies being conducted in child and adolescent populations. The risk of behavioral addiction to internet/social media, which in turn leads to social anxiety, depression, altered eating behaviors, self-harming behavior and suicide has been consistently shown in various studies.^2–5 Problematic social media use leading to addiction-like symptoms have been shown to be prevalent in up to 11% of adolescents. ⁶ Significant rise in mental health difficulties among young people has been frequently observed and correlated with problematic social media use. ⁷ Several cross-sectional studies show social media use among adolescents leading to an increase in self-harming behaviours, depression and suicidality. ⁸

Increased visibility and quantification of social media interactions has significantly increased the urge for peer approval among children (for issues like-belonging and popularity). A more looming danger is online child sexual exploitation and abuse which has emerged as an ubiquitous threat with alarming statistics. In the Indian context, a report of the National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB) stated a total of 1823 cases of cybercrimes against children being reported in 2022, as compared to 1376 cases reported the previous year. ⁹ Globally, research has shown that early access to social media amongst children and adolescents is associated with poor mental health in adulthood that includes low self-esteem, depression, suicidal ideations and emotional instability. ¹⁰

In the backdrop of this research evidence, the proponents of social media ban have suggested statutory ban being akin to the legal provisions of age limit for sale of alcohol or tobacco products.

The Antithetical View to this Crisis

Social media has become an indispensable part of everyone’s daily life wherein we interact with family members, friends, colleagues using these platforms. People have been documented to spend an average of 2.3 hours daily on social media. ¹¹ The positive experiences of social media platforms include- access to cross-cultural and trans-national content, information, entertainment and even monetization of creative content. For many other young individuals, particularly the marginalized groups, social media has emerged as a life saviour. In particular are the young people from the LGBT community or youngsters who are still exploring their gender and sexual identity, and those who suffer with autism spectrum disorders. In this respect, they find it easier to socialize online as they can find their “own people” which might not be feasible in physical (real) neighbourhoods and life. Moreover, social media platforms can serve as valuable avenues for learning, self-expression, and creativity, enabling young people to access information, and engage in social movements. Therefore, limiting access to these platforms may constrain their ability to cultivate critical thinking, articulate their perspectives, and actively participate in their own communities. ¹ Sceptics of the blanket ban also highlight the risk of surreptitious access of social media by the young people and risk of exposure to potentially harmful content. The methodology of the existing research which largely utilized subjective evaluations rather than objective measurements of various contextual factors, active vs passive consumption, positive vs negative experiences of social media usage has also been stated to be a major limitation.

Other groups offer a more precautionary and nuanced approach to the perils of social media usage amongst youngsters. It has been suggested that risk of social media usage occurs only in context to maladaptive use of social media with small to moderate associations with severe mental health problems. Further, the risk factors are also heterogeneous and include not only individual characteristics, but also online experiences, peer influence, family support, and social media platform related factors namely, affordability, confidentiality and privacy features, push notifications, algorithmic manipulations etc. Consequently, the approach of this group of balancers recommends a more effective regulatory mechanism such as responsible digital platforms, parental literacy and monitoring, targeted approach towards the high-risk users, and equitable engagement of the youngsters in policy decisions. ¹²

Blanket Ban: Will it work?

The basis of social media ban by the Australian government was in response to the algorithmic manipulation, infinite scrolling and streaks and push notifications feeding on the vulnerabilities of young minds. With this ban, the government intends to safeguard the progeny and compel the tech giants to focus on the safety of the citizens. Quoting from the report of Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, ¹³ two thirds of adolescents are connected to social media at any given time and the situation is the same in Australia despite the ban. Also, many streaming platforms like YouTube allow endless scrolling even in ‘logged out’ state, jumping off the parental controls, and restricted mode options. On assessing the intercontinental data, a study published in the Lancet Regional Health-Europe found little difference in the mental wellbeing of those attending schools with restrictive phone bans. ¹⁴

Summary and Conclusions

Affirmatively, the world needs policies on social media use for “young people” and their parents, but at the same time the Tech companies and social media platforms also need to be made more accountable with the development of more stringent policies and directives for them. These Tech companies and AI platforms must be held accountable, with mandating of proactive measures to detect and remove harmful content. Regarding supporting parents and the “young children”, Tech companies should collaborate with research institutes to create digital education for parents enabling them to support children in dealing with online bullying, and how parents should be involved in the online life of children. Family-based strategies can be implemented; for instance-not breaking off conversations to check their phone, watching screen time as family time and making a household social media plan.

To Conclude , we have tried to present a brief yet nuanced bird’s eye-view regarding the pros and cons of social media for young people. Literature has proponents of both “for” and “against” the usage of social media for children and adolescents but there appears to be a gradually emerging picture for a more balanced and pragmatic approach revolving around how the risks can be mitigated and benefits be effectively harnessed.

Hence, we conclude this editorial by highlighting the need for a balanced, precautionary and multi-sectoral approach involving all stakeholders including young people themselves for safeguarding their mental health in the digital era.

“Let us move beyond the Binaries and embrace the Pragmatics!”