New social media age-restriction laws: A blunt instrument?

-- By FatimaIsmail - 19 Dec 2024

*Introduction*

The harmful effects of social media, particular on teenagers is uncontroversial. The consequences of irresponsible use of these platforms on mental health has been widely publicised and is hailed as a leading justification by lawmakers globally for imposing obligations on social media companies to restrict the use of their services by minors. Over the past year, we have seen several jurisdictions introduce legislation with the aim of restricting the use by minors of social media. Although the application of these laws will in theory be beneficial to those they aim to protect, the question is whether they will achieve these desired outcomes in practice.

Has social media reached its peak?

The rate of growth of social media use is slowing down as compared to the annual rates recorded in the preceding 5 years. The decrease in the growth of social media and its use are largely due to the negative impact that social media has had on mental health. It is reported that 3 in 4 Gen Z social media users blame the state of their mental health on the use of such platforms, of which, 49% of Gen Z’s have reported feeling stressed and anxious after using social media platforms. The top reasons for respondents’ feelings of stress and anxiety following social media use are due to the consumption of upsetting content; feelings of unproductivity; and the fear of missing out.

The negative effects of social media use on teens’ well-being has led to Australia and Florida introducing laws to stem these effects.

Measures to restrict use among teens

Last month the Australian House of Representatives passed The Social Media Minimum Age Bill which will effectively ban children under the age of 16 from using social media platforms that require an account in order to be accessed, such as Facebook, Instagram and X. While the specifics of how the law will be implemented will be announced at a later stage, the government says it will rely on age-verification technology to administer the restriction and social media platforms will be required to implement their own measures. A violation of the law by children will not result in any penalties imposed on them, but tech companies who fail to take “reasonable steps” to prevent anyone under the age of 16 from accessing their platforms will face significant penalties of up to USD 32 million.

The state of Florida has taken similar steps to prevent the use of social media by minors. From 1 January 2025, it will be illegal for children younger than 14 to have social media accounts. To enforce the ban,* social media platforms will be required to delete accounts belonging to users’ younger than 14.

A viable solution to the problem?

The efficacy of these measures is yet to be seen, however there are a myriad of obvious enforceability issues in respect of these laws. In the case of Australia, tech researchers have cautioned that it is uncertain whether the verification technology will have the intended effect, particularly considering that VPN’s for example, are an easily accessible measure that could allow users to circumvent the restrictions as VPN’s disguise a user’s location and make it appear as if the user is logging in from another country. Had law-makers included tech experts in the law-making process, the bill might have had better practical effect (at least from a tech perspective).

The bill also raises privacy concerns and may lead to unintended consequences as platforms would be required to process and retain minors’ age data (although unclear at this stage as to how such processing will be conducted, the age verification system could include biometrics or processing of government identification).

While supporters have applauded the steps taken by Australia and Florida, a blanket ban is unlikely to achieve the intended goal. Regulating social media use among minors requires the legislature to take a balanced and evidence-based approach. Given that these laws are aimed at the youth, the importance of including their perspectives in developing an effective policy is vital. There is no indication in the case of either Australia or Florida, that the views of the youth were taken into account when drafting these laws. In addition, there is a risk that these laws will have the opposite effect, by inadvertently pushing teens towards unregulated or less regulated spaces. Instead of focusing on tighter restrictions, the focus ought to be on developing digital literacy among the youth and creating safer online spaces for minors. A better way to tackle this issue would be to impose greater obligations on social media companies to adopt new standards to improve their platforms’ transparency, as well as better reporting systems to tackle online abuse.

Notwithstanding this, these proposed solutions mean nothing if the Parasite with the Mind of God continues to have teens (including the rest of society) in its clutches. Without the internal will to change our use of social media, these measures are merely superficial.

Conclusion

While the adoption of laws in Australia and Florida are intended to protect the youth from the harmful effects of social media, in their current form, they are unlikely to have the intended effect. In order for these laws to lead to beneficial outcomes in practice, the focus ought to be – not on restricting use – but on increasing digital literacy among the youth. Ultimately, without the human will to change our habits and dependence on these platforms, the proposed laws are unlikely to achieve their stated goals.