I have often wondered about the long-term effects on children who have as their digital nanny or babysitter their devices and online content. Will they grow up happy, friendly, and energetic like the children they watch in shows or games?
What happens to children who, as they grow older, repeatedly see cruelty done to others, albeit in digital form? Will they grow up and be shaped by the violence on their screens? This is the fear that is now the basis of renewed calls to ban the use of social media by those below 16 years old.
In the wake of recent incidents of violence in schools, it is understandable that calls for such a ban are growing. Although restrictions cannot be the only solution, we also cannot pretend that children are not exposed to violent and cruel material online.
There are criticisms that a digital solution is being pushed for a problem that requires multiple efforts on different fronts, such as enhanced security, school preparedness, parental control and guidance, anti-bullying programs, ending the culture of impunity, etc. It’s true that such a ban cannot be the sole answer to what happened. But we have to address the violence that children see on social platforms.
The case that renewed calls for the ban was the Tacloban school shooting, where two students, aged 14 and 15, opened fire, killing three schoolmates and wounding several others. There were also recent stabbing incidents in a Cavite school and the foiled threat of a mass shooting or stabbing at a school in Tolosa town in Leyte.
There is no proof that social media caused the Tacloban shooting and the other incidents, but children may be exposed to posts that glorify violence, normalize cruelty, comment sections that harass others, and platforms that reward outrage because it drives engagement. Something must be done, at least on the social media front, before another school shooting forces us to ask belatedly what we could have prevented.
Our legislators drafting the law on the ban could take their cue from the Australia model that places the burden on social platforms and not on the minors or their parents. Its restrictions focus primarily on access to accounts on high-risk social media platforms. These companies are required to take “reasonable steps” to prevent those under 16 from creating or maintaining accounts. Excluded from the ban, however, are Messenger, WhatsApp, education services, and gaming apps, depending on
their features.
Our lawmakers should identify these social media platforms that pose a high risk, make a distinction between an account that feeds a child algorithmic content and a messaging tool needed for school or family, determine who is responsible for enforcement, and ensure the children’s privacy when checking their age.
The ban may not stop school shootings, but this safeguard, definitely not a cure-all, can reduce exposure to harmful online content, set boundaries and responsibilities, and require big tech companies that profit from us to do more to keep our children safe.