"Every society recognises that words and images, in certain contexts, do harm and that incitement to commit crime can be a criminal act. There is a spectrum of tolerance and enforcement. Repression of free speech is a symptom of tyranny, but all governments regulate it to some degree. The threshold for intervention is lower when children are involved. That is why the idea of banning under-16s from social media, already operational in Australia, is catching on elsewhere."
"Such material is optimised to capture attention and maximise engagement. The result is rising anxiety, poor sleep [and] reduced concentration. The Conservative leader doesn't think those effects are harmful to over-16s. Quite the opposite. She argues that keeping young people away from social media would mean more freedoms to adults online. There would be no need for infantilising moderation. Let the kids play"
By the late 1990s, political manifestos included pledges to connect schools to an 'information superhighway', foreshadowing a technological shift. Information flow differs from road traffic because harms from published words and images are harder to define than physical accidents. Societies accept limits on speech when words cause harm, with lower thresholds for children. Several countries are moving toward banning under-16s from social media, including Australia, Spain, and France, with the UK considering similar measures. Policymakers argue that shielding young people from violence, pornography and extremist content counters harms like anxiety, poor sleep and reduced concentration, while potentially easing moderation for adults.
Read at www.theguardian.com
Unable to calculate read time
Collection
[
|
...
]