In today’s onlife world where technology is ubiquitous and social media is a primary means of communication, the debate around age restrictions on social media platforms is intensifying – this issue has become particularly prominent during this election season, as some politicians and special interest groups strategically leverage it as ‘low hanging fruit’ to advance their agendas, political standing, and electability. Proposals to age-gate social media at 16 years of age, some say even 18 years, have garnered support from some groups and politicians, but it’s essential to consider why such a policy might not be the best approach. Here are several reasons why we believe that age-gating social media and technology at 16 years may not be in the best interest of most teens:
- Younger teenagers are growing up in a digital world. Exposing them to age-appropriate social media with parental guidance can help develop critical digital literacy skills. By engaging with social platforms under supervision, teens can learn to navigate the internet safely, recognize misinformation, and understand the importance of privacy. Delaying access until 16 may leave them unprepared for the digital challenges they will inevitably face. It’s all about “know” technology rather than “no” technology. (1)
- Denying access to social media for those under 16 risks marginalizing their voices and limiting their ability to participate in online discussions and communities that can affect their future.
- Social media is a tool for maintaining friendships and finding social support, especially during challenging times. Adolescence can be an isolating period, and social media offers a way to stay connected with peers and access support networks. Age-gating at 16 risks cutting off an essential means of communication and support, significantly impacting a teenager’s social well-being. (2)
- Social media provides educational opportunities, including access to educational content, online communities focused on learning, and resources for school projects. Age-gating at 16 could limit access to these valuable resources, hindering the educational development of younger teenagers, especially those who do not excel in a traditional school environment.
- Encouraging parental involvement and supervision is more effective than imposing age restrictions. Parents who engage with their children’s online activities can help them understand the benefits and pitfalls of social media.(3) This guidance can foster a healthy and balanced approach to social media use. Rather than a blanket age restriction, promoting open communication and setting appropriate boundaries is more beneficial. Notably, many parents already allow their under-13-year-old children to access social media platforms despite existing age restrictions, suggesting that similar non-compliance would occur with an age-gate of 16 years.
- Banning younger teens from social media does not necessarily prevent access; it may drive the behavior underground. Teens might create fake accounts or use platforms without parental knowledge, leading to unsafe online practices. Allowing scaffolded access with proper guidance encourages responsible use and better decision-making.
- Age-gating does not address the root issues of online harm, such as cyberbullying, misinformation, and algorithmic bias. Addressing these issues directly is more effective than imposing age restrictions.
- Age-gating raises significant privacy concerns, such as what data is collected for age verification, who collects it, how long it is stored, and how it is protected. The worst-case scenario involves collecting personal information and tracking online behavior, which could lead to targeting marginalized groups, such as LGBTQ+ youth.
- While social media can negatively impact mental health for some youth, the effects are nuanced. (4) Excessive use can be harmful, but complete restriction can also be detrimental. Social media can provide emotional support, entertainment, and a sense of community. (5) Teaching teenagers to use it mindfully can mitigate negative impacts while maximizing positive aspects.
- Technology and social media are integral parts of modern life. Teenagers who grow up using social media responsibly are better prepared for future workplaces and social environments where digital communication is standard. Delaying exposure may put them at a disadvantage in developing necessary skills for their future careers and personal lives.
Instead of relying on age-gating, we should focus on more effective solutions to address online harm. These includes:
- Digital Literacy Education: Teaching young people to navigate online platforms safely and critically and to identify and report harmful content.
- Accountability for Social Media Companies: Holding companies accountable for the content they promote and the algorithms they use to prioritize user engagement through legislation.
- Effective Moderation Policies: Legislating social media vendors to implement effective moderation policies and practices that prioritize user safety and well-being, with significant fines for non-compliance.
Legislation should focus on vendors, not users. Age-gating legislation focuses on the user because it is politically easier. Instead, by holding vendors accountable, legislation can create a safer digital environment without unfairly burdening teens.
While the intentions behind age-gating social media at 16 are understandable, the approach we believe does not address the core issues. Focusing on education, guidance, and open communication can equip teenagers with the skills and agency they need to navigate the online world safely and responsibly. Parental involvement is crucial in helping children develop a healthy relationship with social media, preparing them for a future where digital literacy is indispensable. Together, we can build a safer and more inclusive online community for everyone.
Digital Food For Thought
The White Hatter
References:
3/ https://thewhitehatter.ca/blog/a-transformational-approach-to-parenting-in-todays-onlife-world/
