Social media ban: follow Australia's example?
Comics crackdown didn't work either
The Neue Zürcher Zeitung rejects the whole idea of bans on social media:
“Does the state really need to control every aspect of our private lives? Parents can decide for themselves what's good for their children and how much time they are alllowed to spend on TikTok. And – an almost absurd thought in this day and age – young people can also learn to assume responsibility for themselves. In the late 1940s, US authorities tried to launch a crackdown. Police in Detroit banned dozens of comic magazines from newsstands. Of course this failed to halt the triumphant advance of so-called 'trash literature'. Instead of repeating the mistakes of the past, politicians should focus on promoting responsible parenting and media literacy in schools.”
Fight the freedom gurus
By contrast, author and social democratic politician Irene Lozano argues that the calls to preserve freedom of access are hypocritical in El País:
“These innovation gurus are classic opponents of regulation, just like the tobacco companies. ... When a company manufactures an addictive product (tobacco or social media) and uses R&D to maximise that addiction, invoking freedom is practically a crime. ... This is about defending our autonomy to think and feel. ... Spain, France and Denmark are on the right track. ... And regulation must go hand in hand with a European public digital infrastructure. ... If there's one thing we have learned from social media, it is that they infect us with hatred, loneliness and lies that erode democracy.”
Adults also at risk
The Financial Times points out that in many countries, including the UK, the debate is too focused on young people:
“The problem with the focus on the young in Starmer's new online safety suggestions is the lack of internet safeguards once someone is past the age of 16. No one who has had to review photos of atrocities walks away unscathed: yet now these images circulate freely online. Violent pornography and sexualised images of children, even those produced artificially, are not just harmful to children: they are harmful because of the expectations and behaviour they encourage in adults. ... For too many politicians, banning the young from social media is just a comforting distraction from our collective inability to protect ourselves.”
A nightmare for data protection watchdogs
In Germany too, a debate about introducing a social media ban has begun. Die Zeit points out that an important aspect is being overlooked:
“It means that you have to somehow be able to verify a person's age online. You need digital bouncers. ID is one option. You'd have to upload it or hold it up to the camera. But honestly, who wants to voluntarily give platforms even more personal data? ... The EU wants to take a data protection-compliant approach and is planning to introduce a 'wallet', a kind of virtual purse. ... The problem is that this wallet doesn't yet exist and is not due to be launched until 2027. And if even a few of the parameters that have been pretty data protection-friendly up to now are changed, it will turn into a data protection nightmare.”
Protect children from rampant capitalism
Star praises Turkey's planned social media ban for children under 15:
“Let's not turn this issue into a conflict between the government and the opposition. ... This is not about restricting freedom. It does not restrict our children's right to access the opportunities offered by the Internet in the digital age. What should be restricted, banned and punished are the global digital platforms that prey on our children, set traps for them and seek to make profit from them. ... We need to build a clean digital world and combat the newly organised, rampant capitalism that is constantly changing its tools and forms.”
The individual needs state back-up here
Maria José Fuenteálamo, a columnist for the conservative daily ABC, heartily approves of the Spanish government's push for a social media ban in Spain:
“I haven't heard so many congratulations among parents in a long time. The announcement has met with general approval. ... One might ask why we need a state ban at all when there is such consensus. ... The answer defines our era and perhaps all eras: individuals cannot do it alone, they need the state. ... We may criticise the nanny state for interfering with what's on our screens, but in this case the meddling is welcome. ... I even see it as a compelling reason to vote for Sánchez.”
Insufficient scientific basis
El País is sceptical:
“There isn't much previous experience with such experiments. ... There isn't even a scientific consensus. ... A recent study examined the development of 25,000 children aged 11 to 14 over a period of three years and concluded that neither social media nor video games were related to the deterioration in their mental health. ... But it is clear that such media promote violence, bullying, sexualisation, polarisation, cheating and addiction among minors for profit. ... There is truth to the claim that social networks are atrocious, but the question posed by a 15-year-old Australian quadriplegic in The Guardian is also justified: 'What about those who are isolated?'”
Let the next generation decide
Governments should direct their efforts towards education rather than bans, says Maszol:
“No law has been passed stipulating that small children are not to fiddle with electric sockets, but they've learned the dangers of doing so at home. ... Rather than setting a legal age limit, children should be taught safe behaviour. ... For those of us who were not socialised in this environment, social media can be incomprehensible. But perhaps the growing new generation, which already has a better understanding of the issue, will bring in legislation that really helps to prevent tragedies and make things safer. Provided, of course, that we educate them in the meantime.”