November 28, 2024

expert reaction to the Australian Senate approving social media ban for under-16s

Scientists comment on the Australian Senate approving a social media ban for under-16s.

Prof Chris Ferguson, Professor of Psychology, Stetson University, said:

“There is little evidence that this law will have any positive effect. Currently, the research does not suggest social media time predicts youth mental health, nor that reducing social media time improves mental health. Where similar laws have been tried, such as South Korea with internet gaming, they proved to be abject failures and ultimately repealed. Given Australia’s youth suicide rate doesn’t show a pattern indicating a clear rise during the social media age it’s not even clear there’s a problem to be fixed. This is a clear moral panic with policy makers putting a bad law forward despite the evidence it won’t work or may even be harmful.”

Professor Pete Etchells, Professor of Psychology and Science Communication, Bath Spa University, UK, said:

“I was really disheartened to see the news that this law had been passed in such a short space of time. While the concerns that many of us have about social media are understandable, there is currently too much of a climate of fear around the way we debate and discuss digital technology effects. The polarising nature of the debate is driving one-size-fits-all solutions, like the Australian social media ban, that there simply isn’t any good evidence for. Where research of relevance has been done, it invariably shows small, mixed effects on the things that we are concerned about – things like mental health, cyberbullying and/or educational attainment. Furthermore, enacting blanket bans risks amplifying digital divides and will disproportionately impact marginalised and vulnerable communities.

“There are a wealth of risks and benefits that online worlds can afford children and adolescents, and in some cases, those can have an appreciable impact on wellbeing. None of the issues we worry about are solved by banning access; it is likely that they will make matters worse. Moreover, I am concerned about the precedent that is set here: many experts that I know who have had something reasoned and principled to say about this have been ignored, and instead it seems as though legislation is being rushed through on the basis of a misplaced sense of urgency to do something, anything, right now this second. This is not a sensible or sustainable approach to lawmaking.”

Prof David Ellis, Professor of Behavioural Science, University of Bath, said:

“The current evidence base simply does not support the Australian social media ban. Unfortunately, this is an example of legislation that is doomed to fail. For a start, there is no workable age verification solution and it deflects from real issues facing teens who have not only been largely excluded from the debate, but will work around the ban using VPNs or associated technologies. Evidence from other countries shows that similar bans are easily circumvented. Even the definition of what constitutes social media is unclear. All in all, it is a sad day for evidence based policy.”

Prof Andrew Przybylski, Professor of Human Behaviour and Technology at the University of Oxford, said:

“This is a well-intentioned but deeply misguided attempt to make the online world safer for young people. Restrictions such as these have been tried before and have failed most notably in South Korea where the Internet shutdown Law turned off the Internet for young people between midnight and 6 am and after a decade was shown to be ineffective in either curbing tech use or improving sleep or well-being.

“The technological solutions being proposed here, such as age estimation and age assurance, are known to be ineffective in an analysis conducted by the United States, United Kingdom and Australia itself. Worse still they are less effective for young people from minority ethnic backgrounds.

“There is no evidence that a ban such as this, even if it was perfect, would provide a benefit to the well-being of young people as the underlying science linking social media to well-being is itself flawed.

“There are concrete harms linked to the Internet such as distracted driving which claims the lives of many young people every year and online child sexual exploitation. This law and laws like it will expose children and young people to more harm as they attempt to invade the law through the use of proxies, VPN services, and to other online platforms with a weaker commitment to youth safety.

“Effective legislation should be evidence-based, include the voice of young people, and hold tech companies to account. This law as it was passed does none of these things and it’s more a question of when, not if, it will be repealed.” 

Declared interests

Prof Chris Ferguson: I have no interests to declare. 

Prof David Ellis: I don’t have any interests to declare here. 

Professor Pete Etchells: Pete Etchells is the author of Unlocked: The Real Science of Screen Time (and how to spend it better). He has not received any funding from the tech industry.

Prof Andrew Przybylski: Professor Przybylski’s work is financially supported by the Huo Family Foundation, UK Research and Innovation, and the Economic and Social Research Council. In previous years, his research was funded by The British Academy, The Diana Award, The Leverhulme Trust, Barnardo’s, and the University of Oxford’s John Fell Fund.  He is currently contributing as a scientific advisor to the Sync Digital Wellbeing Program, and he conducts his research in line with the University of Oxford’s academic integrity code of practice.