Is it too late to impose age restrictions on social media users?

The Australian government intends to banned children under the age of 16 for social media because it spends millions of dollars to study how this matter is being applied. However, I think it won’t take long before teenagers who like platforms like “Instagram”, “Tech Tok” and YouTube find ways to bypass the ban and return to use it again. This proposal, which still does not have fine details, comes at a time when politics and parents around the world face increasing challenges in dealing with the negative effects of these platforms on emerging generations. These discussions began years ago and reached their peak in 2021 after the previous Facebook employee (now ‘Mita Platfarms’) revealed Francis Hogan documents showing the company’s flag of the damage to its products of mental health. However, despite the years, US lawmakers are still unable to make federal legislation liable for major technology companies about the damage they have done to young users. Australia begins organizational regulations in this context, Australia has taken the initiative. Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albaniz has pledged to offer new legislation this year aimed at using age boundaries to use social media, and note that the government is considering determining my age between 14 and 16 years. In a video posted on the “X” platform and addressed to the parents, Albaniz said he wanted “keeping children away from their devices and returning to soccer fields.” Opinion polls have shown that the majority of Australians support this ban, which is widely supported by politicians. However, Albanez acknowledged that the government is still at this stage to investigate this ban. The government has not yet determined the platforms that will include the ban (will children be allowed to use ‘WhatsApp’ to communicate with their parents? Or to follow the algebra lessons offered by the Khan Academy via ‘YouTube’?). The government did not provide details of the implementation mechanism (will digital identities similar to monitoring methods in George Orwell’s novel “1984” be used? Or will sanctions be set for the use of “Tech Tok”?). In the absence of accurate details of policy, this proposal seems to be an attempt to attract the attention of voters of the anxious parents, especially with the approaching election, without including concrete solutions to protect children. The dominance of technology giants leads Australia, which is thousands of miles away from Silicon Valley, great attempts to reduce the dominance of technology giants. The Australian government has experienced criticism from Elon Musk after proposing a separate bill aimed at combating misleading information, as mask described the government as ‘fascist’ last week. (The government filed a lawsuit against “X”, formerly known as “Twitter”, because of the publication of a violent video of a terror attack, but lost the case in court). Australia has also fought another long battle to force technology giants to pay fees for the news content. At a time when other governments face similar challenges of these companies, Australia’s multi -dimensional efforts are a model that deserves praise. The effects of the potential ban on adolescents with this have shown that the imposition of age restrictions on the use of social media is not necessarily the most effective way to protect adolescents from possible damage. Young people, even those under the age of 13 and who are already forbidden to use most platforms, have shown great ingenuity to overcome these restrictions. The American Psychological Association has confirmed that the use of social media itself is not necessarily useful or harmful to adolescents, but that strict restrictions ignore the individual differences in their maturity level. In other words, the teenager who reaches the age of 16 does not necessarily mean that he has become more effective in dealing with the digital world than the last 14 years. It is also concerned about privacy to set up a widespread age verification on the Internet, and start storing identification information on young users to reduce their ability to browse the Internet safely while retaining their digital identity. In addition, limiting access to digital communities can deprive some young people of important support sources, especially those belonging to marginalized groups. The application “Tek Tok” has emerged especially as an important platform for the indigenous population in Australia, giving them space in which they are all part of economic recipes and reactions to racial discrimination. Young people who live in remote areas and who may not find their stories in traditional media may feel less isolated thanks to these platforms. On the other hand, the proponents of a society (LGBTQ) in Australia expressed similar concerns about the potential prohibition that could lead to interruptions of adolescents of this societal group. On a large scale, researchers in the technological sector have warned that keeping young people from social platforms will not solve the problem, but will push them to more dangerous and less organized angles on the internet. On the other hand, the evidence for the damages that young people face during their interaction with these platforms increases, despite the efforts of managers in technology companies to deny it. Therefore, lawmakers must take serious steps to protect children from these risks, but providing rapid solutions to complicated world problems often deduce from the most difficult political actions needed to find effective realistic solutions. Who takes responsibility for the damage? A complete generation comes a full generation to prevent young people from participating in digital life, as adolescents today arise in an increasingly digital environment, which is an accelerated tendency with the outbreak of the pandemic of Corona. To the extent that the United Nations emphasizes the right of children to gain access to information online, with adults responsible for ensuring that this content is not harmful. Policymakers should focus on the accounting of social media businesses on the damages that can cause their services, especially when it comes to young users. The first step in this direction may be to demand these platforms to have more transparency on how their algorithms work, in addition to external researchers exploring these algorithms to determine the risks. Without obtaining information on how to design these services, experts and mental health officials will be difficult to develop effective solutions to deal with these risks. Lawmakers should also focus on the obligation of social media businesses, which do their best to understand their users’ behavior, to identify and implement better preventative measures to protect youth. The integrity of the next generation cannot be guaranteed as soon as the age restriction is increased by a few years unless we hold technological companies responsible for reducing risks on their platforms. Instead of trying to deal with damage after it occurred, policymakers in Australia and abroad should address the problem of its roots. In short, the Australian Government proposal discusses a ban on the use of social media for children under the age of 16. While the government is studying how these restrictions are applied, the author doubts the effectiveness of this ban due to the ability of teens to bypass it. The article shows the fear that this step may be late and is not sufficient to address the basic problems faced by emerging generations due to social media. It also indicates other challenges such as privacy issues, to deprive young people of support communities, in addition to the need to hold technology companies accountable and to achieve transparency in the work of their algorithms to ensure better protection for young people.