Mastodawn

My thoughts on social media bans everywhere is that if you're taking digital connections away from teens, you better make sure they have third spaces for physical connection, and give them options for transport that is not "parents drive us around" otherwise all you're creating is isolation.
And you may not need a social media ban if you start by preserving and creating those third spaces. #SocialMedia

Woops, this seems to have struck a chord. I’ll expand:
In the last decades (probably the last century actually) spaces to just hang out in public have decreased, while roads have become less safe for light road users - pedestrians and cyclists, which teens overwhelmingly are.
Additionally, online spaces have become a refuge that didn’t use to exist for teens looking for communities that are hard to find - anything from very specific nerdy hobbies to LGBTQ+ groups. 2/4

The main reason there is a push back on teens’ social media use is the impact on bullying primarily, and the difference in what adults see as real socialising. But while this is happening (and I’m not going to pretend it’s not), banning teens from social media as a response is not just throwing the baby out with the bathwater, it’s replacing the bathwater with petrol. 3/4

We need guardrails in social media, for everyone’s well-being:
- stop endless scrolling
- end advertising based on history and social media behaviour
- support parents and teens to put freely chosen boundaries
- GIVE TEENS A VARIETY OF OPTIONS FOR SOCIALISING
- stop thinking we’ll end bullying by banning the medium and work on root causes
- fund real, effective mental health support for those going down unhealthy digital roads.

4/4

This is all really difficult though, so best to just put in a ban that’s either unenforceable, or enforceable as a backdoor to spying on everyone. 5/4

And while I have you all here: “kids these days are always on their phones” is not the same as “kids these days are always on social media”. stop mixing up the two.

Workshopshed Dec 9

@juliette banning kids from spaces (real or online) means you can be lax on controlling your patrons standards of behaviour so I can see why that is a popular option. As you say bathwater/petrol

New photo, who dis?Dec 9

@juliette As with everything, I think it depends on the kid.

My daughter uses social media heavily to co-ordinate meeting with her friends, to download the latest video from her dance teacher so she can practice for the group recital she is in and to keep in contact with friends and family.

My middle son uses social media to chat while he games. He is autistic and has difficulty with in-person groups, but online groups while gaming create a bounded world with known rules that he can operate in and create a rich and fear-free relationship with his friends.

My older son sometimes goes on social media to communicate with friends, but is not really interested in it and uses it as little as he can.

All use it different amounts for different reasons. Social media is a useful tool, and taking it away from kids means removing their main communication method with friends, interest groups and wider family.

I feel that social media is the boogieman in the same way that, in the past, people have blamed video games, television, Dungeons and Dragons, rock and roll and books for sending the kids down an evil path.

Godfrey642 Dec 10

@juliette
The ban is not spying on everyone.
How do you come to that conclusion?

Teens under 16 can circumvent or log in on parents' login but then that's FAKE info. So all that's happening is that technology companies will be awash with FAKE info.

If teens under 16 have a genuine account already, then tech companies have their info already and are "spying" already. So the ban won't give them info about teens they don't already have. And they reconnect once they are 16.

The ban isn't spying on kids.
Meta X Insta TikTok spy already. Its called algorithms.

juliette Dec 11

@Godfrey642 most age verification tools involve an enormous infringement on privacy, either through face scans or having to send personal details to third parties.

Godfrey642 Dec 11

But that was always the case in order to sign up for those platforms. They've always asked for an insane amount of data which then set the ball rolling with algorithms.

The only thing happening now is that if they ask for name, age, DoB, phone number etc etc teens EITHER give the same data all over again OR they give fake data which is useless to the platforms.

OR they just take it on the chin till they're 16 and enjoy other things in life other than scrolling memes.
Pick up the phone and chat. Talk to family + friends. Go for sleepovers. Read, draw, join a sports club.
Y'know, normal stuff.

Epic Null Dec 15

@Godfrey642 @juliette I have been on social media most of my life and have not uploaded my ID to a single one or approved face scans.

ID uploads amd face scans Are how social media compamnies are verifying ages these days.

Also a lot of thise normal things are less and less accessable these days. Talking to friends tends to be through video chat clients which are social media, and with current transportation infrastructure and our squeezing parents to make them work more... anything that requires travel can be considered out. So no sports clubs (by the way, those are expensive), sleep overs or in person hangouts.

That does not exactly leave a lot of options.

Godfrey642 Dec 15

@Epic_Null @juliette

You don't need video chat to talk to people.
Explain: "current transportation infrastructure"
and "our current squeezing parents to make them work more"

You don't need a club to get out and have fun with sport. We used to meet friends and spend an hour kicking a ball around, playing tennis at school in the holidays or go to the pool. Depends on motive: sport for fun or fitness or career.

Epic Null Dec 15

@Godfrey642 @juliette

You don't need video chat to talk to people.

No, but it is the single most common means and the only one that reliably supports things like blocking while also not requiring a particular physical device. It is also required if you want to say, send pictures. Bonus if you want security.

"current transportation infrastructure"

Our streets are designed for cars, we have large sections in towns and cities that lack sidewalks, and our busses are often inadequate and unreliable.

In other words, if you have no car, and your parents didn't have "walkability" high on the priority list, you only go somewhere if your parents drive you there.

"our current squeezing parents to make them work more"

Take that last section and then significantly reduce the probability that a parent is available to drive.

You don't need a club to get out and have fun with sport.

You said sports clubs.

We used to meet friends and spend an hour kicking a ball around, playing tennis at school in the holidays or go to the pool.

Yeah. I heard. Kids used to play without fear in the streets and not come home till the street lights are on.

That is often neither allowed nor practical these days.

Depends on motive: sport for fun or fitness or career.

If you are me, it is none. I happen to think sports suck. But I am in the minority. Street Sport is no longer really an option for Fun, and it will take a lot of work to fix that. Making it harder for kids to communicate is NOT a start to that work.

Godfrey642 Dec 15

@Epic_Null @juliette

I think teens <16yrs are being sold a false dependency on tech that doesn't enable them to flourish as humans. Im an educator so I have taught literally 1000s of teens and what i can tell you *absolutely* is the current generation has potentially the world at their fingertips but are in straightjackets in terms of personal resilience. Especially here in Australia. (We're a European immigrant family in Melbourne).

The only thing that's trickier here are the distances.
Europeans walk, cycle, bus, train everywhere. In Europe you'll see kids from around 6/7 using public transport. Even when the sun sets in winter at 4pm and they walk home in the dark.

There is absolutely ZERO need for an Aussie teen to be driven to school or by a parent. Period.
Schools are all within a few kms of home and streets are wide and safer than Europe where there are more ppl and cars in narrow streets. Kids need to learn to cross roads! Kids need to walk bc it keeps them fit. (I used to walk home with mates for the chat and it took 45mins). There's no place for sooky dependency.

There are way more green spaces + parks in towns here than available in UK. They should be used and enjoyed. Not feared.
Where is the fear coming from? Fear stunts growth.
Aus ISNT awash with criminals behind every tree and teaching kids to fear being out, or on public transport or in town parks is a form of abuse not preparation for adulthood. My own kids walked to school, used transport to go to school and their jobs.

My issue around the ban is toxic SocMed - imagine the Bondi shooting this week getting into <16 kids' phones through unregulated comments and clips... If they had old style Nokias that just phone and texted, no problem.
Btw you can send photos with SMS. Signal does photos and vids.

European streets are mostly designed for cars too. Strange that.
In older towns roads are more dangerous bc the roads were designed for horses and carts so they are narrow, with parked cars and way way more vehicles. UK streets have hazards everywhere and there's 70million ppl in an area just squeak bigger than the size of Victoria (UK 240,000 km² Victoria 227,000 km²). We don't get dropped off at school bc of congestion not bc there's 1000s of criminals lurking behind trees or ready to snatch us off a tram.

juliette Dec 15

@Godfrey642 @Epic_Null you also constantly mix up smartphone access with social media access. those are two different things.

Godfrey642 Dec 15

@juliette @Epic_Null

Look, complex multi layers.
Im not confusing SocMed and smartphones. I just don't like the people we've all become bc of SocMed and smartphones.
There's clearly huge benefits to what both offer but i personally think there's a massive problem with the dark sides.
I see regulation as a safety net.

Ill think we'll just have to agree to differ.

Magnus Ahltorp Dec 9

@juliette Practically no adult I’ve ever met as a child have given me the impression that they want to end bullying.

Wulfy—Speaker to the machines Dec 10

Relevant, research/teen brainwashing

https://infosec.exchange/@n_dimension/115685688524663103

Wulfy—Speaker to the machines (@n_dimension@infosec.exchange)

@geeknik Propagandist's Playbook target: Teens 1. Exploit transition glitches. Rapid emotional pivots (calm > outrage > vindication) keep adolescent brains dysregulated longer than single-emotion content. 2. Sustain background threat. Feed outrage, then "safe" content that looks reassuring but maintains low-level anxiety. Brain never fully exits threat-mode. 3. Fast cuts > slow cuts. 1-2 second scenes prevent emotional state completion. Brain processes previous emotion while encountering new one. Adolescents lag ~50-100ms; exploit that lag. 4. Shock hits harder. Adolescents under-recruit threat-detection during happy > angry transitions. Graphic/sudden content hits an unprepared neural system. Psychological impact amplified. 5. Algorithmic oscillation. Detect outrage engagement > feed calming content (incomplete cool-down) > feed more outrage. Keep them in the glitch zone. Core insight: Engagement #algorithms reward content that creates dysregulation. You're not accidentally exploiting #adolescent #neurology you're deliberately architecting for it. Source: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1697260025001073?via%3Dihub #propaganda #brainwashing #socialmedia #socials #broligarchs #psychology #computationalpropaganda

Infosec Exchange

Cassandrich Dec 10

@juliette "Variety of options for socializing" that doesn't include full access to internet is a non-starter. It does nothing for kids who don't want to socialize in person, who feel unable to, who have nothing in common with other kids in their locality, etc. It just serves neurotypical- and other in-group supremacies.

Cassandrich Dec 10

@juliette Hot take that shouldn't be: Any effort to ban kids from the internet and force in-person local socialization is a form of conversion therapy and inherently abusive.

Epic Null Dec 15

@dalias @juliette So what is the take of "Those who want to ban kids from the internet aren't even interested in doing the work to accommodate in-person socialization, indicating that they aren't even trying to engage in conversion therapy - they are just straight up not recognizing that children and teens are people"?

Epic Null Dec 15

@dalias @juliette I certainly wouldn't say I see a lot of "Pro safe-streets" discussion from the people who push to ban the internet for children. Or "Build more parks". Or "Open more child-friendly stores". Or even "Build denser housing so kids are closer to other kids". Or even "More libraries! Safe routes to school!"

You know, conversations that would emphasize opportunities to socialize in person.

It's just "Remove them from the internet"... and it's like "And let them go WHERE?!" Because ultimately, I know there is no "where". Not the streets, the parks, the library, the internet...

The goal seems ultimately for the children to not exist

And that makes a lot of sense when you consider that change often comes from the youth... but that makes it less okay, not more okay. If you want to keep kids from organizing to create a new movement, you can just... keep them from meeting. It's the same isolation we are used to today just... more!

@Epic_Null @dalias @juliette Be careful what you wish for. The typical "keep our streets safe" advocacy the think-of-the-kids crowd advocate for is "there's too many foreigners out there, keep our kids safe".

@lianna @Epic_Null @dalias @juliette i think you might be mixing up two different groups

Wren Reilly Dec 15

@Epic_Null @dalias @juliette If everyone really gave a damn about kids, tall SUVs and trucks for non-work purposes would be banned while public transit would be on-time and free, kids could go to a person with a child psychology PhD in every school to talk about bullying, the foster care system (especially for LGBTQIA+ youth) would be well-funded and publicly run, there would be free meals in all schools, and there would be age-appropriate education about bodily autonomy for all kids.

But that's evil commie stuff that takes away freedoms, unlike banning social media.

Morgan ⚧️Dec 15

@Epic_Null @dalias @juliette IDT the goal is for kids not to exist. I think it's for them not to develop as people. For them not to grow into individuals who can realize that these systems are unfair and their parents are abusive. My generation grew up with internet-facilitated sex education, abuse education, and history education. The rich people who built the education systems to starve us of that information don't like that. Nor do groomers or abusive parents.

Arne Visscher Dec 15

@raphaelmorgan @Epic_Null @dalias @juliette 🛎️🛎️🛎️ bang on. We've got some reactionary religious groups fighting education programs that will allow kids to spot abusive behaviour here in the Netherlands too. They just want a steady supply of easily exploitable "sheeple" for lack of a better term.

Epic Null Dec 15

@zomgwtfbbqkewl @raphaelmorgan @dalias @juliette Not familiar with the acronym 'IDT', but that theory and observation fall far more into line with my own observations and the visible behavior of those calling to age-gate social media.

Morgan ⚧️Dec 15

@Epic_Null it just means "I don't think", I didn't have enough space to type it out

Cassandrich Dec 15

@Epic_Null @juliette The default that's already there is "convert to normal or be condemned to loneliness and being made to feel bad about yourself without any voices to counter that and validate you". Work to accommodate in-person socialization isn't needed for that default to happen.

@dalias @juliette I'd have literally committed suicide in my pre-teens without the internet. Socializing in person as an undiagnosed autistic kid with other mockable disabilities was just not gonna go smoothly. In fact, one of the times I really tried, I was sexually assaulted by a classmate. *sarcastic thumbs up*

Cassandrich Dec 15

@hellomiakoda @juliette And this is exactly what the people proposing these laws want. 🤬

Godfrey642 Dec 10

Yes we do need guardrails.
As with say tobacco and alcohol you can't just say to teens oh it's bad for you don't do it. They will. We did. The ban gives parents more clout and a way into broader discussion.

Again as an educator I have seen SO MUCH damage done to the most vulnerable teens. The savvy strong kids survive regardless, albeit dragged into the stoopidity of what's out there and that dumbing down affects learning.
The lonely isolated strugglers are completely lost as to how to connect except on screen, they aren't learning skills for the workplace, for life. Those "connections" they are making on screen may "look" effective, but are weakening their resilience, not strengthening it.

Make no mistake we need this ban to hold the tech companies to account. They could do so much and do so little to solve this.

Michel Patrice Dec 9

True. « Third places » are fewer.

The problem isn’t being online, the problem is exposure to a toxic algorithm.

(We could bring back the early chat rooms from the 90s where chatters were represented by a kind of talking emoji.)

And Mastodon and the Fediverse, free of toxic algorithm, should not be a problem.

Godfrey642 Dec 10

Speaking as a European who has happily lived here 26yrs I've always been amazed at how many resources Aus has that are underused. How safe and efficient transport systems are, and how dependent Aus kids are, unnecessarily.

Kids in UK Germany France Spain walk to school, get buses/ trains/ trams to meet friends and we brought up our 3 daughters to do the same here. We live in Melbourne.

Parents are WAYYYY too protective here. Way too cautious. Way too molly coddling.

Im a secondary school teacher ex-Head of yr 7 8 9 and I can unreservedly say this obsession with parental control stunts and restricts the potential and resilience of Aus teens.

Rage Rumbles 🏴‍☠️ 🏳️‍🌈 🫂🔞Dec 9

@juliette You have thought it through far more than any of the prison guards

@juliette //cc @coba This <3

★ Amy Star ★Dec 9

@juliette @Mayabotics I'll be honest with you: I think the isolation is a feature, not a bug, for these parents.

bunny_sunglasses

@AmyZenunim sadly you're probably right

@juliette @Mayabotics

Magnus Ahltorp Dec 9

@AmyZenunim @juliette @Mayabotics To hell with parents who think their children are for their benefit, and not the other way around.

@juliette a social media ban equals authoritarianism. it's digital isolation. It's by no means *ever* acceptable

EinsPossum, Hass-Ära 2.0 Dec 9

@juliette I dont think physical third spaces can be substitutes for digital stuff, since they arent accessible to many people.

But they definitely are important and way more should exist.

@EinsPossum @juliette It really is as simple as if you ban your child from social media, your child will naturally go outside and play and interact with physical tangible things to the best of their ability, they will also develop their imagination and real world learning as they go. It is the single most natural thing for a child to do and they will be better prepared for adult life

Think how bad X is, now imagine how a child turns out after years of interacting with its bots for hours per day

EinsPossum, Hass-Ära 2.0 Dec 9

@Rastal @juliette And what about children that cant go outside and play due to disabilities? Or due to living somewhere where there simply is no place to go?

EinsPossum, Hass-Ära 2.0 Dec 9

@Rastal @juliette Most queer youths are only safe to be open about themselves online due to bigoted and dangerous parents or peers, that is another reason why having the option to talk to people online as a youth is important.

Supermoosie Dec 10

@EinsPossum
Or the kids that have no friends and get bullied, yet have a whole heap of friends online from around the world who don't care what they sound or look like.

Or the kids who use social media to connect with friends and family from other parts of the world. Particularly if in remote areas.

Or who go on marketplace to buy second hand stuff like bikes.

Or kids that have their own businesses to promote.

Or kids that organise and promote stuff to other kids, eg kids news by kids, environmental programs.

Or organisations that engage with kids. Such as sporting, health, volunteering bodies eg lifesaving.

Official Government and safety information is disseminated on social media. Social media Community groups can have important information before official sources. Eg on the weekend 16 houses burnt down. I was driving and saw smoke and child was able to use SM and local group to find where it was, what roads were blocked, before SMS and website warning.

Use of social media is complex. It is across all manner of society.

There has been no study in this rushed process to understand the implications or how kids actually use it.

This is kids censorship and digital book burning.

Alternative voices have actively been silenced in this process.

The celebrity promoters of the ban have made $ and have a "ai" age guessing (verification) software they are pushing to the world, in partnership with big corporations and a advertising agency.

Parents have been left powerless to raise their kids how they want.

It exposure kids to scams and fraud as they try to get around the ban. See the verification scams we have seen here, but targeted at Aussie kids or dodgy vpn apps.

It gives more personal information, including biometric information
to the big social media companies.

Already personal information has been stolen and leaked.

Kids will be dropped into social media at 16, without the phased guidance of parents. That happens now.

@Rastal @juliette

@Rastal @EinsPossum @juliette that’s nice when you have sizeable population density, an array of third spaces like parks, movie theaters, malls, etc., and the ability for kids to get there without permission and hassle. This has been robbed especially of many American children. They depend on cars, which means parents, and even then, tons of third spaces are gone and not coming back.

Patrick H. Lauke Dec 15

@Rastal @EinsPossum @juliette bullshit.
also "think how bad X is" ok let's put sanctions on X, not blanket-banning teens from accessing social media, then

🌱🏴‍🅰️🏳️‍⚧️🐧📎 Ambiyelp Dec 9

@juliette Teens will just move to decentralised open source encrypted apps where they can't be policed. And I'm not talking about fediverse where individual instance owners can potentially be held accountable I mean stuff like SimpleX Cwtch or Briar

#SimpleX #Cwtch #Briar #FLOSS #E2EE #Fediverse #SocialMediaBan #YouthLiberation

@juliette That's so logical and so well said. It's a pity though that these legislations have nothing to do with teenagers, they are just used as a pretext for censorship and surveillance.

goblin greg 🏳️‍🌈Dec 9

@juliette I think we all know this has nothing to do with protecting children.

Kevin Avery Dec 9

@juliette Agreed 100%! Third space omission is tantamount to a digital time-out that can alter social familiarization on down the road

Fish Id Wardrobe Dec 9

@juliette exactly this!

Fiona Bianchi Dec 9

@juliette I agree with others here that blanket bans are not really a solution and amount to dangerous overreach of government.

On the other hand: Facebook (Meta), X, LinkedIn, and other corporate social media are incredibly problematic for everyones (children and adults alike). I'm curious if the social media ban legislation extends to Mastodon, PeerTube, Loops, etc?

Also what about support groups and mailing lists? Discord servers? If these are also banned than I would suggest, on balance, that this is dangerous authoritarianism (as others have already idenitified) and the government is restricting access to groups that may actually offer a support and lifeline for teens, e.g. 2SLGBTQIA+ teens who may have no other means of accessing a supportive community

Supermoosie Dec 9

@fionasboots @juliette
These apps are not specifically targeted as a ban to enforce, but has to consider the risk.

Kids have pushed alternative apps to the top 3 positions on app store downloads.
The esafety commisioner has said they will add these new apps to the ban if the kids move there.

Bluesky and redditt now taking steps to ban u16, despite not being required to.

Fediverse apps flying under the radar. We are too uncool and daggy dad to have any u16s* here, so we don't need to enforce.

Graeme 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁳󠁣󠁴󠁿Dec 9

@juliette It's just a hand waving exercise to avoid the real problem - the platforms themselves, which need to be regulated.

@juliette
Totally agree.
https://unpublishablepapers.substack.com/p/where-do-the-children-play#footnote-1-177886853

"digital space is the only place left where children can grow up without us. For most of our evolutionary history, childhood wasn’t an adult affair. Independent worlds and peer cultures were the crux of development, as they still are among the BaYaka; kids spent their time together, largely beyond the prying eyes of grown-ups.

But in the West, the grown-ups have paved over the forests and creeks where children would have once hidden. They have exposed the secret places. So the children seek out a world of their own, as they have for millennia, if not longer. They find a proverbial forest to wander. They don’t know what we know: this forest has eyes and teeth."

Where Do the Children Play?

On the need for a world without us

Unpublishable Papers

J_Peregrine Dec 9

@juliette
Kids really need safe spaces and adults need to recognize it. I myself do not believe in safe spaces anymore since they were all taken away...

Neil Moffatt Dec 9

@juliette Simple to say, but the more time they spend on phones, the less face to face social skills they develop. So banning online access needs to be accompanied by help for face to face.

Supermoosie Dec 10

@NicelyManifest @juliette
Simplistic view.

Yet social media conversations have given my shy girl, confidence to talk to those scary adults in person.

And social media gives them both plenty of ideas and hints of what is going on in each other's lives to spark real conversations and connections.

She coaches other kids slightly younger than her. Times and dates are always changing due to conditions.

Negotiation with parents on times and days when all 12 kids are available. Dealing with parents that are clueless, forget or need to be spoonfeed information. Recruiting new kids (an adult was undermining he and scaring them away) all happened via social media.

The safe space and time to think, allowed the young teenager to get adults to do what she wanted.