ACT MP Dr Parmjeet Parmar has written to the Chair of Parliament’s Education and Workforce Committee. She’s calling for politicians to listen to all the options for reducing the harms of social media on young people. The proposed inquiry would examine the practicality of introducing a ban on social media for young people and consider that against alternative solutions.

“The proposal to simply ban social media for those under the age of 16 is unlikely to solve the problem. Technologically, it’s a mine field. Morally, it is a Government solution that does not involve parents. Its unintended consequences could do more harm than good," says Dr Parmjeet Pamar.

“The things that can go wrong are extensive, for examples:

• A ban could fail technically, with young people simply going around it to interact in new ways. Will, for example, Reddit threads be forbidden, and how could they evolve to produce the same harms we are currently worried about?
• A ban could excessively restrict access to the digital world, meaning young people miss out on genuinely useful opportunities, for example Australia will apparently exclude YouTube from Social Media
• A ban could unintentionally drive young people into the darker corners of the internet. The bill doesn’t block access to the internet itself – it targets platforms that at least try to build guardrails. The wider internet doesn’t. TikTok is easy to ban because it’s identifiable. But you can’t ban being online, and when the mainstream platforms go, the guardrails go with them. Maybe that trade-off is worth it and the risk of a young person finding truly objectionable material isn’t that great – but it’s a question worth asking.
• A ban could stigmatise online activity, making young people less likely to discuss harms they experience with parents and teachers, because they view their activities as illegal
• A ban could displace high quality solutions that allow parents to control internet access and enter the digital world safely
• A ban erodes personal responsibility. It implies that responsibility lies with the Government, when real solutions should involve Government, business, and community, especially parents in this case.

Advertisement - scroll to continue reading

“A high quality inquiry would hear from teachers, principals, technological experts, mental health professionals, and parents, among others. Hearing their views and evidence, would put all options on the table. There might be a better way forward than a simplistic ban that young people will probably get around anyway.

“Other jurisdictions have moved towards bans, but there is no success story. The implementation is proving tricky. Rather than repeating their mistakes in real time, we should learn from them. In Australia, even though the legislation has passed, they still have no idea how the age restriction will be enforced.

“The last thing we want is a knee-jerk response that sees young people pushed to the dark web or other platforms that don’t even self-regulate – or creates a system that forces everyone, under 16 or not, to hand over personally identifiable information to tech companies.

“ACT shares the concern that social media is causing harm to young people. But any government response must be grounded in evidence and respect parental responsibility – a Select Committee inquiry would ensure we are best placed to achieve that.”

Notes:
Under Standing Order 191, a subject select committee may initiate inquiries into or receive briefings on matters related to its subject area as specified in Standing Order 189.

Dr Parmar's letter to the Chair of Parliament’s Education and Workforce Committee can be read here.

© Scoop Media