this post was submitted on 12 Dec 2025
54 points (98.2% liked)

Canada

10761 readers
449 users here now

What's going on Canada?

Related Communities

🍁 Meta

🗺️ Provinces / Territories

🏙️ Cities / Local Communities

Sorted alphabetically by city name.

🏒 SportsHockey

Football (NFL): incomplete

Football (CFL): incomplete

Baseball

Basketball

Soccer

💻 Schools / Universities

Sorted by province, then by total full-time enrolment.

💵 Finance, Shopping, Sales

🗣️ Politics

🍁 Social / Culture

Rules

  1. Keep the original title when submitting an article. You can put your own commentary in the body of the post or in the comment section.

Reminder that the rules for lemmy.ca also apply here. See the sidebar on the homepage: lemmy.ca

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
otter@lemmy.ca
mp3@lemmy.ca
otter@piefed.ca
mp3@piefed.ca
54
Why Canada should avoid Australia’s teen social media ban: A call for better solutions -- [Opinion] (www.concordia.ca)
submitted 3 days ago by Scotty@scribe.disroot.org to c/canada@lemmy.ca
53 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

As of Wednesday, all youth under 16 in Australia will be banned from major social media platforms like TikTok, Instagram, Snapchat, YouTube, Reddit, Twitch, and X. For over a decade, whistleblowers, politicians, academics, and experts around the world have sounded the alarm about the online harms people of all ages are exposed to.

...

The ban does nothing to prepare teens to respond to digital harms. It makes no investments in education, community training, or parental support. Youth will not be magically prepared to address problematic online behaviours or content when they turn 16.

The time and resources spent on the ban could be better spent on things like providing education and support for digital citizenship, media literacy, privacy rights or resource centres.

If social media is problematic for a 13, 14 or 15 year old, it’s still likely to be problematic for a 16, 25, or 80 year old. There is no body of research that establishes 16 as a “safe threshold” for social media use and the age for healthy use can vary across genders.

...

Under the current model, companies will not be inclined to improve their reporting systems for harmful content. In fact, in response to the ban, YouTube is actually removing a feature that would allow teens to report content they find inappropriate.

Youth under 16 who find ways to use these platforms, despite the bans, will be unlikely to come forward and ask for help if things go wrong. After all, they weren’t supposed to be online in the first place.

The answer to mitigating online harms is not kicking teens offline.

...

Social media companies also need to be accountable to the ways the platforms are designed and run. These platforms are designed in ways that push certain content and elicit particular engagements.

...

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] NarrativeBear@lemmy.world 1 points 2 days ago (3 children)

Any of these solutions are similar to someone coming into my home and telling me how to raise my own kids.

Instead provide parents with routers that support parental controls, and a countries government can instead maintain a curated list of websites that are accessible for certain age groups.

This would be the most practical solution and would meet the "protect the children" narrative.

Anything more then this is a invasion or privacy and a way to monitor the public.

[–] hanrahan@slrpnk.net 2 points 1 day ago

Any of these solutions are similar to someone coming into my home and telling me how to raise my own kids.

I'm not aware of any country in the world that doesn't do that ?

Australia has cumpolsory education for children, doesn't allow smoking, doesn't allow alcohol consumption, doesn't allow children to drive, doesnt allow them to participate in porn, doesn't allow them to have sex, enforces vaccination and a litany of other directives that over ride parental choice.

Many of the above are considerd harmful for children, like a swathe of experts say about chikdrens exposure to social media.

Some places in the US you are arrested for child endangerment for allowing your child to walk to school and the US continues to condone regularly shooting their children in the 1000s..

What I, some random on Lemmy thinks should be irrelevant, this should not be a "do your own research and go with your gut" sort of nonsense, thats what gives us RFK Jr.

What a majority of clinical experts do think is important. I was just pointing out the blantant flaw in your argument.

[–] Auli@lemmy.ca 2 points 2 days ago

Problem is the vast majority of parents won't have any idea what your talking about or anything.

[–] jaselle@lemmy.ca 1 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Routers is not the way. It should be device-side. Children's phones and computers should blacklist social media, or even whitelist allowed sites IMO. Otherwise they can get around this with data, or public wi-fi.

[–] NarrativeBear@lemmy.world 1 points 2 days ago (1 children)

This can already be done TBH, phones have something called private DNS settings, so all one would need to do is set your phones DNS to a appropriate DNS that blocks or allows a specific websites.

This DNS could potentially be curated by a local government. This would allow a parent to set their child's phones DNS appropriately at their discretion.

This would be less privacy invasive and would remove the need for a "digital ID". While at the same time checking the box of protection ones children at the parents discretion.

[–] jaselle@lemmy.ca 1 points 2 days ago

Yes. But it's not easy for parents apparently. Indeed, there's a coordination problem -- while the standard is for kids to have social media, removing social media for one child disconnects them from their peers. So standardising the ban would be needed.