The social media ban is just another political smokescreen

The proposed ban for children fails to engage with the realities of the modern world, where the focus should be on integration and education, not restriction and suppression.

The federal government’s proposal to ban social media for children under 16 is more of a political tactic rather than a solution to the issues it claims to address, and this type of policy-making usually results from a desire to shift public focus, drawing attention away from other pressing matters. It’s a tactic both sides of the political spectrum adopt – it’s more commonly used by conservatives but the Labor government has shown that it’s a tactic that it’s more than happy to borrow.

With this proposed ban, we see the same formula: create a moral panic, ignite public outrage, and turn what could be nuanced issues into black-and-white talking points. But it raises the question: what’s actually behind this proposal, and how much does it genuinely engage with the complexities of social media and youth?

To begin with, this policy is tailored more for the parents of the children affected than the children themselves, who lack the power to vote and remain outside the immediate political equation. This narrative speaks to a different audience – parents who may feel overwhelmed by the challenges of raising children in the digital age, and now see the consequences in terms of screen dependency and exposure to a relentless online world, and taps into the underlying anxieties of parenting in the digital era, offering a symbolic solution rather than one grounded in practical realities.

The government’s reasoning behind such a drastic measure seems oblivious to real-world dynamics and suggests a disconnect with how young people interact with media and digital spaces. Banning social media for this age group not only misunderstands its purpose but overlooks the value it holds for many children and teenagers. Social media, for young people today, can be far more than a digital distraction: it’s a place of connection, a cultural and social language, a virtual space for discourse, camaraderie, and identity formation.

The government’s proposal ignores the reality that digital interaction is the predominant means by which youth communicate and build relationships, particularly in an age marked by digital transformation.

Even in practical terms, the proposal falls at the first steps: it’s unclear how this ban would be enforced or even defined. There’s also ambiguity surrounding what platforms qualify as “social media.” For instance, including YouTube in the ban reflects a lack of nuance regarding the platform’s multifaceted role, particularly in education. YouTube is more than a social platform: it’s a resource for learning that enables access to a world of knowledge. Its limitation would disrupt the availability of digital learning resources, particularly for schools and educators who rely on its content for enhancing educational engagement and broadening student access to knowledge.

What further complicates the government’s stance is the inconsistency in its approach to media consumption and social issues for young people. While the government expresses concern over the dangers of social media, it allows gambling advertising on free-to-air television, which is arguably as impactful, if not more, on young minds than the content they might encounter on YouTube or TikTok. This selective morality – acting harshly against social media while ignoring other equally significant issues – highlights a deeply problematic approach to policymaking that prioritises optics over coherent, thoughtful strategies for youth welfare.

Appeasing News Corp rather than protecting children

The proposed ban also reveals another dimension: a desire to appease powerful media conglomerates and vested interests, particularly News Corporation. This isn’t solely about protecting children; rather, it reflects the influence wielded by legacy media over political decisions. In this case, the Daily Telegraph’s aggressive “Let Them Be Kids” campaign isn’t so much about safeguarding young Australians as it is about advancing the News Corporation agenda and consolidating their influence over both government policy and public opinion.

News Corporation’s track record when it comes to the welfare of children is woeful. The company has consistently shown it has little interest in protecting young people, having been embroiled in scandals involving phone hacking and invasive behaviour that exploited and harmed children and families. The company routinely manufactures crises in public schools, distorting incidents, railing against woke and creating moral panics to manipulate public perception. Yet here, it claims to be acting in the interest of child welfare – a stance that is not only hypocritical but also obviously self-serving.

The government’s alignment with News Corporation is a strategic choice that goes beyond a desire to address social media’s effects on children, and Prime Minister Anthony Albanese’s effusive public praise for the “Let Them Be Kids” campaign further demonstrates this appeasement. It’s typical of a broader political strategy, one that seeks to placate conservative factions and demonstrate an affinity with “traditional” values – values often defined and amplified by the platforms of News Corporation.

This approach also highlights a troubling dynamic within Australian politics: the selective willingness to challenge vested interests based on where they’re located. Local entities, particularly media giants like News Corporation and gambling firms, receive kid-glove treatment, while overseas-based tech entities, such as Google and Meta, are easier targets for government scrutiny – they lack the local leverage and are easier to criticise without fear of local media backlash. By targeting social media companies, the government can posture as proactive on child safety, even as it sidesteps confronting powerful domestic interests with arguably greater societal impact. The government has decided that it’s easier to condemn Mark Zuckerberg’s algorithms in California than to hold accountable Australian media or gambling companies that directly profit from children and families.

The government’s focus on social media ignores the problems in legacy media

This proposal reflects a trend where the political establishment, and particularly legacy media, is waging an ongoing battle against social media and its influence. This dynamic speaks to a deeper struggle between old and new media, a clash of traditional top-down information control versus a modern, bottom-up approach that social media has enabled.

Social media has empowered individuals, given voices to movements from the Arab Spring in the early 2010s to #MeToo, and highlighted global injustices in real time, circumventing the slow or biased coverage of legacy outlets. Social media, despite its flaws, offers a platform for ordinary people to report, discuss, and engage with issues independently of large media conglomerates, which is why the establishment views it as such a threat.

This ability to democratise information flows is something the mainstream media often mocks or diminishes, dismissing social media as chaotic, unreliable, or dangerous. It is true that platforms like Twitter/X and Facebook harbour their share of toxic content and misinformation. However, the value social media provides – empowering people to communicate and mobilise without relying on traditional media – is profound.

In an era when media giants are often beholden to political or commercial interests, social media represents a rare avenue for independent, grassroots expression. The establishment’s disdain for this is no surprise – social media is harder to regulate and control, and for governments accustomed to controlling narratives through traditional media channels, it represents a challenge to their influence.

Albanese’s government, however, seems oblivious to this, choosing instead to align with legacy media and direct its energy towards policies aimed at regulating or restricting social media rather than addressing the many issues entrenched in the traditional press. The federal government currently has legislative control over legacy media, as it has for many decades. There are long-standing calls for a Royal Commission into media ownership, especially into Murdoch’s near-monopoly, and for inquiries into misinformation and disinformation propagated by these outlets. Yet the government has ignored these calls, shying away from meaningful action that could curb legacy media’s political influence and improve media diversity in Australia. This lack of initiative is a missed opportunity to address the ways in which traditional media, rather than social media, have historically influenced elections (although social media’s influence is increasing), manipulated public opinion, and prioritised corporate interests over accurate reporting.

The government’s blind spot with social media also ignores the sophistication of the current generation – younger people today have grown up with social media and possess a level of media literacy that previous generations did not. They navigate platforms, sift through content, and bypass traditional media with an ease that seems to baffle older politicians and journalists. They’re not beholden to any one platform; if one social media site is restricted, they’ll simply migrate to another or find ways to circumvent restrictions. Whether it’s through Reddit, Discord, or other upcoming future platforms, this generation will continue to engage with social media in ways that legislation is unlikely to prevent. This adaptability also suggests the futility of an age verification policy that can easily be bypassed with a VPN or an alternate IP address, rendering the government’s proposed restrictions nearly unenforceable.

Yet, the government seems set on pushing this unwieldy policy forward, even though it presents numerous logistical and ethical issues. Suggestions have surfaced that the proposal will introduce an identity card by stealth, requiring people of all ages to verify their identity to access social media – how else could it be done? – this idea raises significant privacy concerns and evokes memories of the poorly executed initiatives of previous governments, such as the 2016 census data debacle. Forcing Australians to prove their age before accessing social media platforms could mirror these past failures, creating yet another poorly designed data system that’s vulnerable to privacy issues, corruption, misuse, or outright failure.

The irony here is that this policy, similar to other rushed digital restrictions, treats social media use as inherently negative without considering ways it could be integrated productively. The mobile phone bans enacted in New South Wales and South Australia schools are recent examples: rather than implementing measures that encourage responsible use, these policies issued blanket bans, ignoring the role phones play in daily life and education. Rather than encouraging students to learn phone etiquette – turning off devices in class as they would in a cinema or public setting – the government opted for an absolute prohibition, failing to acknowledge the ubiquity and utility of mobile devices in today’s world. A similar oversight is evident in this proposed social media ban; instead of working with digital tools, the government’s instinct is simply to ban them outright.

This reactionary approach reveals an outdated perspective on both media and technology. A blanket ban on social media access for under-16s doesn’t just fail to address the root issues of online safety and media literacy – it does nothing to engage or educate young people on responsible online behaviour.

Rather than expending resources on a proposal that’s impractical and likely unenforceable, the government would be better off to focus on policies that address the real issues in Australian media – especially legacy media, which remains firmly within their control. This social media ban is little more than a political diversion, a show of force against the uncontrollable tide of digital platforms, while ignoring the longstanding influence and issues of traditional media. It fails to engage with the realities of the modern world, where the focus should be on integration and education, not restriction and suppression.