From Child Safety To Government Control

 

There is something almost everyone seems to agree on: social media can be bad for children.

Parents worry about it. Psychologists warn about it. Politicians promise to do something about it. And increasingly the villain has a name — the algorithm.

The concern is not imaginary. Heavy and problematic social-media use has been associated with depression and anxiety, particularly among adolescent girls. Cyberbullying, social comparison, harmful content and disrupted sleep can all cause problems.

But the evidence also suggests something rather less dramatic: how social media is used matters enormously. Time limits, keeping phones out of bedrooms at night, parental supervision and simply talking to children about what they encounter online can reduce the risks.

Which raises an uncomfortable question.

When did a difficult parenting problem become a government responsibility?

Whatever Happened to Parents?

Every generation of parents has faced influences it couldn't completely control — television, pornography, alcohol, drugs, unsuitable friends and the irresistible attraction of doing whatever your parents told you not to do.

Social media has made the job harder. But parents still decide when younger children get smartphones. They can impose time limits, monitor accounts, keep phones out of bedrooms and intervene when something looks wrong.

None of that guarantees success.

Parenting never has.

Yet increasingly the response seems to be:

If parents cannot completely control something, government should.

Australia has already prohibited children under 16 from holding accounts on designated social-media platforms. Britain has strengthened online-safety and age-assurance requirements. European governments are considering further restrictions.

The justification is compelling.

We are protecting the children.

But what exactly are we authorising government to do?

From Protecting Children to Controlling Algorithms

Governments are moving beyond restricting children's access. Increasingly they want to regulate the algorithms deciding what appears on our screens.

Australia's proposed “My Feed, My Way” reforms would require platforms to give users greater control over whether their feeds contain algorithmically recommended material.

Giving users more choice sounds attractive.

But it also establishes an important principle:

Government can regulate the mechanism deciding what information appears before us.

Today the concern is obvious harmful content directed at children.

Tomorrow it might be misinformation.

Then extremist material.

Then hate speech.

Then political propaganda.

Each step can be justified as preventing harm.

I am not suggesting governments introducing child-safety laws secretly intend to censor political debate. The danger is simpler than that.

Once society accepts a government power for one legitimate purpose, extending that power becomes much easier.

The question therefore isn't whether children should be protected.

Of course they should.

It is where that authority stops.

The Privacy Paradox

There is another uncomfortable consequence.

To stop children using social media, platforms first have to determine who the children are.

That can involve analysing photographs, facial-age estimates, account behaviour, devices and other personal information.

So we arrive at a strange outcome:

To protect children from technology knowing too much about them, we may require technology to know considerably more about them.

Perhaps that trade-off is worthwhile.

But we should at least acknowledge it.

Three Responsibilities

There is a simpler way of looking at the problem.

Social-media companies have responsibilities. They should not knowingly drive vulnerable children toward increasingly harmful material simply because engagement produces revenue.

Parents have responsibilities. Governments cannot replace knowing what your 13-year-old is doing at midnight with a smartphone behind a closed bedroom door.

Government has responsibilities too — particularly where platforms facilitate illegal activity or knowingly expose children to demonstrable dangers.

But these are three different responsibilities.

We should be wary of allowing the third gradually to absorb the first two.

Social media can harm children. That is a legitimate reason for parents to take greater control and for platforms to behave responsibly.

It does not automatically follow that government should decide what information algorithms may place before us.

Protecting children is important.

So is protecting the freedom of adults to decide what they read, watch and believe.

The challenge is ensuring that in pursuing the first, we don't quietly surrender the second.

Because after we turn off the algorithm, one question remains:

Who gets to decide what replaces it?

Further Reading: This debate is ultimately about who retains control as technology becomes more powerful. 
In Speak … If You Dare! I looked at the growing pressures on free expression, while Can We Keep AI Under Control? examined the broader problem of keeping increasingly autonomous technology within boundaries set by humans. 

The same principle runs through both: technology may change, but responsibility for deciding the limits should never be surrendered lightly.