An activism email on a social media proposal

PPS - in addition to the subsequent news links at the end of this email, this article is well worth reading: 

• “How well is the federal government regulating social media in Australia?”   https://theconversation.com/how-well-is-the-federal-government-regulating-social-media-in-australia-237991     
  

 

In response to the media release at https://www.premier.vic.gov.au/social-media-age-limits-help-parents-and-protect-kids, I sent an email which I have provided a lightly edited copy of below. 

Before reading that, please also note   

https://socialism.com/fso-article/proposed-social-media-ban-is-no-solution-to-the-youth-mental-health-crisis/   

and   

https://jewishcurrents.org/more-truth  

START OF EMAIL 

Dear Members of Parliament, 

Measures to look after the wellbeing of children are always commendable, and my personal dislike of social media is shown by only using YouTube, LinkedIn, and limited use of Discord for one specific group (their choice for communication, not mine). I have never used Facebook, and have left every other form of social media I ever tried. 

Furthermore, the proposal to cooperate for a national scheme is a sound, even wise, approach, and I commend all involved in that selfless decision to do so.

Nevertheless, there are some additional aspects I wish to bring to your attention.

The first is not underestimating the capacity and agency of young people.

While there unquestionably are age-appropriate limits which should be respected and observed, one of the best ways of killing the plague of misinformation and disinformation which floods social and mainstream media, is to vaccinate our population against those problems by teaching them to recognise such problems - and children should be included in such programmes. (This would also help minimise the risks of scams.)

This is one of those situations where children may wind up with better skills in this area than their parents, and I trust those parents would, out of the love for their children, accept that state.

The next issue is that of privacy. Whenever sensitive personal information is collected, it MUST be kept safe - and companies in Australia and, to lesser extent, government departments, have a poor record on that (appalling, in the case of some companies).

In my case, part of keeping myself safe online is to not provide any information that is not essential for the function concerned - which is one of the many reasons I refuse to use Facebook, and some "opportunities" I decline rather than collaborate with such surveillance capitalism.

I also, as an additional example, refuse to provide my actual birthdate for any unofficial request.

If we, as a society, are going to request that sort of information from our children, we MUST make sure that it is properly protected - and absolutely NOT ask for information that is not genuinely essential for this function, and not try to rely on more technology as a substitute for sound forethought and respect.

By the way, if this sort of request extends to adults, then I for one would simply stop using online resources. I am old enough to have retired, and am not interested in cooperating with actions that put the security and privacy of my personal information at risk - and that is based, in good part, on the poor experience I have had with platforms such as MyGov and Services Victoria.

Such risks are magnified for people who are members of minority groups - including children.

Going back to children, expecting them to make sensitive information available online early in their life makes it more likely that their privacy will be compromised at some stage of the course of their life, and that they may therefore be exposed to identity theft.

The precautionary principle must be pre-eminent.

Another principle that must be respected is accountability for the social media platforms. The eSafety Commissioner was an excellent step, but the attempt to enforce our standards on other nations that the commissioner recently made and then had to back down from was incredibly destructive of that office's credibility, and must never happen again. Despite that, genuine regulation of such platforms must happen - the online world is unavoidably an essential service, and must be held to reasonable standards just as health services, water supplies, and companies are.

That is necessary even if the companies are unhappy about it.

I consider we have generally lagged behind the European Union is such online matters: perhaps this is an area we can take a lead - beginning with education to inoculate our young people against misinformation, disinformation, bullying, and hate speech.

Actions to strengthen mental health, including respect for others (noting the many excellent programmes already underway, but possibly without coordination/collaboration on this aspect) would also be a useful part of this proposed action. 

No reply to this email is necessary. 

Yours faithfully,

END OF EMAIL 

 

PS - please also note:   

• “Get a VPN and delete your cookies, Australia’s privacy laws are still lagging behind | Paul Karp | The Guardian”   https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/article/2024/sep/09/australia-privacy-laws-reform-albanese-government      
• “Australia’s dummy spit over kids on social media isn’t the answer. We need an internet for children | Aleesha Rodriguez | The Guardian”   https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/article/2024/sep/10/australias-dummy-spit-over-kids-on-social-media-isnt-the-answer-we-need-an-internet-for-children   “The ban is a distraction from the need to develop of high-quality experiences online for children of different ages   ...   It is possible to chart the political and public discourses about banning children from social media to the publication of The Anxious Generation by Jonathan Haidt. There is a direct link between the language of Haidt’s book and the 36 months campaign, led by media personalities, which Albanese endorsed on radio in May. Haidt’s claims have been disputed by experts at London School of Economics.   ...   Contrary to what the politicians keep saying, the evidence is not clear. But what is clear is that books that tap into parental anxieties should not be used as the driving force to enact national policy.”      
• “Australia plans to ban children from social media. Is checking and enforcing an age block possible? | Australian politics | The Guardian”   https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/article/2024/sep/10/australia-children-social-media-ban-age-limit-under-16-details   “As the Albanese government pledges a ban, age verification trials in the UK and US show possible hurdles and privacy concerns”     
  

• “Social media is like sex – young people need education, not unrealistic bans”   https://theconversation.com/social-media-is-like-sex-young-people-need-education-not-unrealistic-bans-238680     
  

• “Labor’s plan to ban children from social media might actually create more harm, charity says”   https://www.theguardian.com/media/article/2024/sep/12/australia-plan-to-ban-children-from-social-media-might-actually-create-more-harm-charity-says   “Raising age limit ‘completely irrelevant’ to risks young people face online, child protection group cited by PM warns”     

 

 

Assumptions / basis 

In writing this, I have assumed / started from the following: 

• this blog states quite clearly that it is about political and human rights matters, including lived experience of problems, and thus I will assume readers are reasonable people who have noted the content warning in the post header;

Possible flaws 

Where I can, I will try to highlight possible flaws / issues you should consider:

• there may be flawed logical arguments in the above: to find out more about such flaws and thinking generally, I recommend Brendan  Myers’ free online course “Clear and Present Thinking”; 
  
• I could be wrong - so keep your thinking caps on, and make up your own minds for yourself.
  

 

 

If they are of any use or interest, the activism information links from my former news posts are available in this post.  

If you appreciated this post, please consider promoting it - there are some links below. 

Note that, as with my main blog [see here], I am cutting back on aspects of my posts.

Remember: we need to be more human being rather than human doing, and all misgendering is an act of active transphobia/transmisia that puts trans+ lives at risk & accept that all insistence on the use of “trans” as a descriptor comes with commensurate use of “cis” as a descriptor to prevent “othering”.

Copyright © Kayleen White 2016-2024     NO AI   I do not consent to any machine learning aka Artificial Intelligence (AI), generative AI, large language model, machine learning, chatbot, or other automated analysis, generative process, or replication program to reproduce, mimic, remix, summarise, or otherwise  replicate any part of this post or other posts on this blog via any means. Typo’s may be inserrted deliberately to demonstrate this is not an AI product.     Otherwise, fair and reasonable use is accepted under Creative Commons 4.0 on an Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike basis   https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/