Note: The discussion was held under the Chatham House Rule. All quotes have been edited for clarity, brevity and anonymity.
“I think what we don’t have, even in Australia, a properly scaled study on exactly what types of harms are being faced by which age groups,” said one of the speakers during MediaNama’s roundtable discussion on Age Verification and Restricting Social Media for Children on May 15 in Bengaluru.
“Do we have a granular sense of the specific harms—say, the types that 8 to 12-year-olds face versus those that 12 to 13-year-olds, 13 to 15-year-olds, and 15 to 18-year-olds?” she asked rhetorically.
“That granular picture was never done,” concluded the speaker.
However, the majority of the speakers at the discussion agreed and elaborated on the existing harm to children because of the internet, particularly about social media. For instance, one of the speakers said that media consumption is a significant issue, manifesting in children across:
But, is social media the only cause of all problems?: “If you ask me about causation—as I said, yes—if somebody has depression, they may turn to social media to feel better, right? But do they feel better? Does it aggravate it? It’s something we have to assess on a one-on-one basis. Obesity, as you know, is also multifactorial. So I can say that social media is one of the factors that may be contributing. But is this the only factor? That’s difficult to say,” said the speaker.
MediaNama editor Nikhil Pahwa highlighted the following issues with social media platforms and the harms their design choices are causing to children:
Problematic Platform Design that is affecting both children and adults:
Specific Harms to children on the internet:
While acknowledging the harms of social media, one of the speakers highlighted the nuanced argument specifying that not all social media is inherently bad. He said:
“There is absolutely no research consensus that social media use causes universal harm. That’s first and foremost. The reason this is so conflicting is that multiple studies demonstrate certain positive impacts, especially for marginalized minorities and vulnerable groups of children, including queer children.”
The speaker offered an example from Manipur, where they had worked. Children relied on internet and social media to cope with what they had endured:
Speaking of some other positive use cases of social media, he said: For instance, for a queer child in a conservative family, where the parents might not be the neutral stakeholders, social media exposure can offer genuine benefits, like:
He also said that, for a neurodivergent child, an online relationship may be their only form of social connection. Neurodivergent conditions can include autism, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), Tourette’s syndrome, dyslexia, and dyspraxia.
Nonetheless, the speaker acknowledged the harms and pointed to algorithmic design as one of the causes: “That isn’t to say there are no recognizable harms from recommendation algorithms that promote hateful content. If a child experiments with manosphere content, the platform ensures they receive increasingly radicalizing manosphere content. That is a problem. That is platform design. That is harmful.” The “manosphere” refers to websites and forums focused on men’s interests and rights, often in opposition to feminism, according to the Cambridge Dictionary.
What content should children be kept away from? One expert said that any paediatrician would clearly identify the following as harmful:
Why is the proposed policy focused only on children and adolescents? “In many conversations surrounding platform bans, the focus comes to adolescence because we see the output manifest there. During formative years, behaviors and emotions pile up, and you see them burst when adolescence hits. And that’s precisely when we’re talking about restrictions and bans. So it has to start from the root level,” said the speaker.
The habitual cultivation of children’s desire for smartphones is beginning from toddler age: “I work with many families and children. Invariably, the conversation turns to social media and device usage. We’ve seen cases where toddlers—two- or three-year-olds—throw severe tantrums when denied access to devices. These tantrums can last for hours,” said an expert.
The speaker asked the participants to refer to the Indian Academy of Paediatrics Digital Media Guidelines [PDF] to access their recommendations on how to engage with and introduce the internet or smartphones to children from early childhood.
While one speaker emphasized the need for studies before acting, another emphasized the urgency of addressing immediate harms.
On the need to act urgently: “Online sexual solicitation is so common. When I look at National Crime Bureau data, we see a 400% increase in cybercrimes involving children from 2019 to 2021. We need to do something. And if you tell me nothing can be done—my God, as a paediatrician, I feel like my children are so unsafe.”
Children, bullying issues, and lack of support from cyber police: “When I spoke to many principals and teachers, they were thrilled [to hear about the social media ban for children] because they grapple with bullying issues constantly. We have to investigate each case carefully, and it’s genuinely difficult to resolve. Sometimes it reaches the point where we involve the cyber police, but they’re reluctant to help. They say it’s a school issue and we should handle it at the school level. So there’s no real support from law enforcement agencies.”
She also pointed out that the issue becomes even more complicated when bullying escalates into real-life physical fights. “We’ve seen physical fights and other serious incidents that emerge from online conflicts,” she said.
According to another speaker, Australia’s social media ban was triggered by a series of incidents over 15 years, including cyberbullying and teen suicides.
The story of a sixth-grade student, reward-based game design, and peer pressure: An educator shared the following incident to highlight how technical design impacts students:
“There’s a group of boys in that class playing Free Fire. This good student felt left out and was being bullied by them. They told him, ‘Oh, you can only score there. You cannot beat us here.’ So he wanted to prove himself and started getting involved. Then what happened? The kids started investing their pocket money. They went to nearby digital stores, converted the money into digital cash, entered the code into the apps, and started playing. What we understood—the psychology behind it—is that when they cross levels, they are rewarded. Even the design is built that way,” she said.
Note: This discussion was organised with support from Meta and Snap. Community partners for the event included Pacta, Design Beku, and The Pranava Institute.
Read MediaNama’s whole coverage of this discussion here.
Also Read:
For You
此内容由惯性聚合(RSS阅读器)自动聚合整理，仅供阅读参考。 原文来自 — 版权归原作者所有。