In Texas, a lawmaker has recently introduced a bill that would completely ban anyone under 18 from using any social media whatsoever, and require age verification via photo ID for anyone over 18 to open a social media account. And Twenty-One Debunked opposes this bill for the following reasons:
- First and foremost, it is extremely ageist and a slippery slope. And what's to stop them from arbitrarily raising the age limit even higher?
- It is far too broad an overreach, and throws the proverbial baby out with the bathwater. Social media does have a dark side that we all should be aware of, but a blanket ban on everyone under 18 is NOT the way to deal with it.
- Young people ages 13-17 are not adults, but they are not entirely children either. There needs to be far more nuance than this sort of blanket ban.
- It is yet another intrusive instance of Big Brother, that also affects people over 18 as well.
- There is no obvious grandfather clause for anyone already over 13 but under 18 who currently already has social media accounts.
- It will disadvantage people under 18 relative to people over 18 when it comes to networking for jobs (keep in mind that LinkedIn would count as social media under this bill).
- It will simply drive people under 18 onto the Dark Web instead, where there are NO rules or limits of any kind, period. If they are tech savvy enough to set up and regularly use their own Facebook, Twitter, or TikTok account, they are also savvy enough to download Tor and then go down a far, far worse rabbit hole of horrors.
Thus, this ageist bill is a massive government overreach that will do far more harm than good on balance. If we must have any hard age limits for social media by enforceable law, and that is a VERY big "if", they should not be any higher than 16 at most. Age verification is OK in principle, but it needs to be done very carefully to avoid unintended consequences in terms of privacy and such.
So what should we do instead? Well, we could adopt the data privacy laws that the European Union currently has. We could tax the "attention economy" by taxing the advertising that serves as the business model of Big Tech. We could put regulations on the algorithms that Big Tech uses to manipulate its users of all ages and keep them hooked. We could investigate Big Tech for antitrust violations. We could, you know, actually educate young people on social media literacy, ideally starting long before they go on such sites. We could do a smartphone buyback (similar to gun buybacks) for all ages. And we could also, you know, enforce existing age limits (typically 13) that are clearly NOT being followed in any meaningful sense, honored far more in the breach.
We could do all that and more. But that would make too much sense, right?
To all lawmakers: please vote a HARD NO on this bill and any similar bills. And to all parents and other adults reading this: be a mentor, not a tormentor.
That particular bill in Texas is an ageist bill. It is a bad bill. Girls and boys are 13-17 years old should have the right to participate in society, including virtually on social media. The justification which the legislator makes for the bill says more about society, rather than the girls and boys, themselves. There are in fact, truly vile, awful people in this society who would like to mistreat people, including young people who are 13-17. The best approach in reducing any potential harm against this age group on social media is to educate on this issue and educate this age group on contacting the proper authorities if such problems require so. However, the current minimum age of 13 should be kept.
ReplyDeleteWell-said as usual, Wayland.
ReplyDeleteI'm going to say something that's going to leave a lot of soccer and wine moms, (or generally any overprotective parent) upset: Stop with the over reliance on the government to protect your children. The government is not a subsitute for your poor parenting. It seems that any issue pertaining to children or young adolescents always needs legislation. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that we shouldn't have some government support in trying to make society safer for children and young teens, but many parents are no longer stepping up.
ReplyDeleteFor example, the "youth vaping crisis" caused so much moral panic that it sparked the movement for T21 legislation and the banning of flavors for adults. "Kids are dying from cotton candy e juice" when it was black-market THC vapes with Vitaman E-acetate that was the main culprit for so many injuries, illnesses, and deaths. Instead of parents trying to investigate their children's social circles and being aware of where they are going when they leave the house, they attacked a whole industry that caters to helping adults getting off cigarettes.
They do the same with sharpie markers, whip-it cans, spray paint, etc. If you as a parent don't want your minor son or daughter on social media and you're paying the bill, you sit down and make it clear to them. You shouldn't need a lawmaker to step in. If you're allowing them to be on these platforms, you educate them on how to be safe online and make it clear what behavior and content is acceptable or unacceptable.
I reiterate, it is NOT the job of the state to raise your children. Be a parent and give them the guidance they need. Lawmakers always end up going further than you would like and tend to overly sensationalize.
Why not focus on having protections for everyone? Is a 21 year old suddenly less likely to be human trafficked than a 20 year old? I don't take the issue lightly, I think it's a horrible crime, but that's not going to solve anything.
DeleteThe real danger is where it concerns children. Children account for half of the victims of human trafficking. In fact, the average age that a young person becomes involved in sex trafficking is 12 years old, so I can see where you're coming from in regards to wanting stricter age requirements for social media. However, the people you're worrying about don't just lurk online.
Adults over 18 can be victims too, but it can be harder to prove. It's too broad of a topic to discuss in one post.
Well-said as usual, Grant.
DeleteThanks.
ReplyDeleteTo anyone reading this: We at Twenty-One Debunked have only one and one agenda, and that's liberty and justice for all. What's yours?
ReplyDeleteVery much agreed. It's time to treat young adults who are 18-20 years old like adults in all spheres of law and regulations. It's also a good thing to treat the 13-17 age range with more respect.
ReplyDeleteAmen to that!
DeleteThis conversation is hereby shut down, and comments are now disabled. You can thank the troll for that.
ReplyDelete