The Social Media Summit proved that experts need to do better

In the wake of last week’s inaugural Social Media Summit, conducted over two days in Sydney and Adelaide, it is now abundantly clear that those who oppose lifting the minimum age of social media citizenship - many of them scientists themselves – are not relying on science to support their positions.

Guest post by Dany Elachi, Co Founder and Movement Director of The Heads Up Alliance

Originally published on LinkedIn 

The Heads Up Alliance, a national movement of families delaying social media for their children, had a small but significant representation at the summit, including young people. Between us, we were present at all sessions across both days, including the six break out sessions in Sydney that were not live streamed. In my capacity as founder of the Heads Up Alliance, I was also privileged to speak and present a parent's perspective as part of a panel discussion with Dr Elizabeth Milovidov and Dr Joanne Orlando.

More on that panel discussion in a moment. First, let’s set the scene a little.

The way that childhood has been experienced by young people for millennia is fundamentally changed today, upended by the mini poker machines that are now wedded to our children’s palms. Social media alone has invaded Australian teens’ lives to the tune of four to five hours per day (on average). There are many, many teens who now spend more time online than they do sleeping. Our children have been sucked into a vortex of obsessive checking, comparing, judging, being judged, sexual predation, responding, liking, sextortion, bullying, exposing and being exposed to, in a manner and on a scale that is unprecedented in human history.

And it is parents who know most intimately the harm all this is doing to our children. We witness daily the impacts on play, real-life friendships, self esteem, learning, time spent outdoors, focus, sleep, reading, mental health, family connections, exercise and all the unsung little moments that used to so make for a healthy and balanced childhood.

We are very justified in our concern.

The question of when our children ought to enter this addictive phone-based world (if at all) is therefore a pertinent and urgent one.

It is a question that has preoccupied many Australian parents this year (most clearly demonstrated by the almost 180,000 signatures garnered by “36 Months” and News Corp’s “Let Them Be Kids” campaign).

Lawmakers have taken notice and are now also in the thick of the national debate, with various state premiers and federal politicians, all the way up to the Prime Minister, expressing support for lifting the minimum social media age. Indeed, the federal opposition has already promised it will do so immediately, to 16 years, if elected next year.

Given this background, as parents took their seats at the Social Media Summit last week, we were particularly looking forward to hearing the arguments of the experts and academics who had been pouring cold water on this intuitive proposal in recent months.

Surely this was the place, the grand platform, their great opportunity to lay out the science supporting their positions.

We were hoping to hear someone make a positive case for 13 years, the current age of social media citizenship. In the very least, we were hoping to hear a cogent argument as to why this age – an accident of American privacy law, written 25 years ago, before social media was even invented, to serve the financial interests of tech companies - ought not be tinkered with.

And yet, speaker after speaker, expert after expert, left parents empty-handed.

Not a skerrick of evidence was presented. Not a single study. Not a shred of scientific rationale.

Not one academic, expert or mental health organisation (and be assured, some of the biggest names in the country presented at the summit) took this golden opportunity to make their case from the vantage point of science.

Instead, we heard a lot of “lifting the age alone won’t solve all the problems” (no one is suggesting it will), “we need education” (of course we do - this is not an either/or proposition), “we want the platforms themselves to do better” (yes let's please push for that too!) and other similar unconvincing arguments.

Just because it has been 13 years since anyone can remember, is not a reason to keep it this way. “The vibe of it” is not a good enough reason either, and it certainly isn’t science. Putting the onus of proof on parents and others who wish to see the age lifted is also not science. It is in fact science done backwards.

One of the more surprising moments at the summit was when my fellow panellist Dr Joanne Orlando ultimately revealed that experts don’t actually know the right age:

“I’m not willing, as an expert, to say ‘this age’. I would need to investigate that more, because I think these are our children. Working out the best age isn’t something that’s easily done, so it’s very difficult to say what would be the best age”.

Right.

And if we don't know, precisely because these are our children, because their wellbeing is on the line, because their very lives and childhood itself is at stake, we apply the precautionary principle and tread very, very carefully. In other words, until we work things out, 18 years is the prudent position to take.

It also begs the question:

If experts truly don’t know, then why have so many of them been so busy these past few months, campaigning so intently, writing op-eds, doing media interviews, testifying before parliamentary committees, issuing joint letters and joint communiques, in support of the status quo of 13 years?

It has been quite troubling to say the least to watch serious scientists, experts and mental health organisations, trusted by the public and who are usually careful and considered in other areas of their professional lives, trip over themselves to oppose lifting the minimum age, effectively supporting Big Tech’s interests over our children’s.

A smattering of opposition is to be expected - there is rarely consensus on any issue - but the wholesale inability to lay out a scientific case for the status quo position and the subsequent widespread disregard for the precautionary principle, suggests to parents that other motives and factors, including group-think, might be at play.

Whatever the case, for a fundamentally important question such as this, one that has implications not only for the lives of individual children but for the future of our society more broadly, we urge a return to the careful, objective and dispassionate approach, where the science of children’s development and regard for their wellbeing, is placed firmly at the front and centre of our considerations.

For now, our Prime Minister, our Premiers and other lawmakers would do well to heed the common-sense call of their constituents and simply get on with the job of legislating in this area before the year’s end. Too many of our children are suffering in real time, too many are dying, and we do not have another moment to spare.

The Heads Up Alliance is a growing community of Australian families delaying social media and smartphones for their children. You can find out more by following them on Facebook here. 

See also: 

Age Matters: The Case for Raising the Social Media Age Limit

Hold social media platforms to account: MTR addresses Fed inquiry

Submission to the Joint Select Committee on Social Media and Australian Society


Add your comment

  • Dany Elachi
    published this page in News 2024-10-21 17:45:04 +1100

You can defend their right to childhood

A world free of sexploitation is possible!

Fuel the Movement