Children can be permanently damaged by the wrongful use of devices and their technology. Is the answer to restrict the time they use them for?
With breakneck speed over the last 15 years the internet, the cloud, the digital world has taken control of lives certainly in the biggest economies of the world, raising huge questions many of which are barely discussed let alone understood among the mainstream public. Whoever controls the applicable technology is immensely powerful: in autocratic countries that tends ultimately to be the relevant dictatorship, such as Putin or the Chinese Communist party or, in democracies, massive free market corporations: both are dangerous.
Leaving AI aside, a burning question is the level of damage being inflicted on people by addiction to screens and certain screen content, and the invasiveness and influence of social media and so the damage that can cause. Without seeking to address all the potential risk areas, perhaps it is appropriate to ask whether social media for certain social groups should be banned, such as under 16s.
ADDICTION
It has long been alleged that the algorithms used by the tech companies, such as Meta, Google, TikTok, and others, are such that they are designed to collect data of people’s likes, as they click away, then to feed them more information, adverts or images consistent with those likes so that their devices are delivering more and more of the drug that absorbs them. That is the heart of the business model it is said. The Center of Humane Technology is a busy evangelist of this theory, and of the harm it causes. All in the name of profit or other financial gain through corporate valuation.
The USA today is the centre for hundreds of Court cases brought alleging the addictive nature of social media, the most famous being the bell-weather case of K.G.M. v Meta and others in California. One of the defendants was TikTok but they reached an out of court settlement in January 2026. The TikTok U.S. business, Chinese owned, was also declared a security risk in the USA and has been sold to an investment group, assembled, it seems, by Trump. Meanwhile, Snapchat, YouTube and others are having to explain that their algorithms are not, and are not intended to be, addictive. The UK surprisingly perhaps seems to have no such worry, but its approach to Chinese issues, like TikTok, is more Nelsonian blind eye, perhaps due to the Government pipedream that China is its trading friend and is not to be upset. Is the same approach being adopted towards tech companies?
Digital devices, especially iPhones, but also iPads and other screens, are now perhaps proven by sufficient research to cause considerable mental and emotional damage to certain people when used excessively or to absorb damaging content. They become a bad habit. An addiction. Jonathan Haidt’s book The Anxious Generation has become a worldwide catalyst for concern over damage to adolescents particularly. It is very compelling and sort of obvious in its conclusions and these are now hard to ignore. Yet Governments as always have been years too slow to react and now they are knee-jerking.
WHAT SOLUTIONS?
One answer could be to not provide children under say 14 with devices such as iPhones but provide simple telephones for communication purposes. However, the world has come to depend on phones for a vast number of basic services and information, just for ordinary living and increasingly is doing so. Therefore becoming expert in using devices efficiently and smartly is fundamental to education to prepare children to thrive in the modern world: the earlier children learn good habits the better.
Australia has banned social media for under 16s. There is a strong Government move in the UK to do something similar; and apparently according to an Ipsos survey referred to in the Economist a majority of adults in 30 countries surveyed favoured a ban from social media for under 14s. Outright bans for anything seemingly damaging at least for some people who do not control usage well are attractive and simple: but such a raw one size fits all approach could have unforeseen consequences. It would deprive a lot of users of evident benefits of social media. Some content after all is positive. Chatting with friends is not necessarily harmful and may be beneficial.
Alternative approaches may be better. Technology is advancing daily, and the ability for parents to control content and usage of apps may be increasing, or it is likely it will. Then there is the ability of governments to regulate the platforms which provide social media: Snapchat; YouTube; TikTok; Facebook; Instagram and so on. A question must be asked as to how frightened are governments to challenge the big tech companies which promote and run these products?Trump certainly rails against regulation and may threaten those who impose it. But the Online Safety Act in the UK is a start. Enforcement is essential and this could be a weakness as it has been in many public regulators. It is perhaps pointless to continue to ask the corporations in charge to regulate themselves as their denial processes are such that profit rules. A perhaps bigger challenge is to diminish the power of these excessively influential and controlling businesses and to break them up. Their algorithms are being audited more and more and perhaps they can be reined in. But urgency and toughness will be required.
Finally, of course, restraint on usage of social media needs public buy-in. Some argue a ban is too easy to circumvent through the use of say VPNs – maybe they should be outlawed too. More worrying it is reported that in the UK a survey by Public First shows that over 50% of UK parents would ignore any ban on their children using social media. Without such buy-in does a ban have meaning? If children flout the ban, what enforcement penalties will ensue in our already clogged up courts?
Controlling the phones and other devices with technology and holding the providers accountable for addictive algorithms and inappropriate content, and enforcing strongly, may be a more realistic and workable approach. In the end the answer may rest with parents.
PARENTS AND CHILDREN MUST TAKE CHARGE
Perhaps the biggest harm for children is the potential waste of time on devices, at the expense of more developmental activities with over 20% of children using them for at least 7 hours a day, and it is said 64% of children use devices between 11pm and 5am. It is obvious that the more time on devices, the less time spent by children playing, experiencing real life things, relating to other people and developing soft skills. The greater too the anxiety and stress and inability to cope and find solutions for life problems, the secret of resilience.
As with most issues affecting children and shielding them from harm, teaching them good habits and risk management, and resilience, the answer lies with parents who are responsible for their welfare, and not to forget the children themselves who can learn disciplines too. A major error is to think the state education system can be the solution, as it is but an aide and support. Restricting time on devices is perhaps the easiest and most inexpensive remedy for the risks involved. But it means saying no to children. And persuading them of the pleasure as well as benefits of other activity. It also means setting an example and so adults themselves will have to be seen to deprioritise the devices and focus on relationships instead. The answer is the responsibility of ordinary people. And society needs to be saying so.
See also: – An Existential Threat – Social Media, Its Technology and Business Model
Leave a Reply