HITL Reading Group: Meeting #3

In session 3, the Human in the Loop Reading Group reflected on the Australian government’s decision to ban social media for children (age of consent – 16 years) and the lessons drawn from it, as captured in a piece for Tech Policy Press. The reflection this time, though, was different in that the participants explored the view from different seats at the table, engaged in role play, and identified some of the ingredients that a policy measure should have, if not for a ban.

In the opening segment, the participants reflected on all the competing interests and values. Each actor involved in the full implications of a ban on social media would have their own perspectives and values they would want to protect. With this as the reflective prompt, the group identified mental health and wellness, safety, curiosity, child safety, countering cyberbullying and threats, safety, justice, accessibility, human rights, labour rights, equity, anonymity, digital safety, privacy, and accountability. 

They then picked one stakeholder from among the key ones involved or affected, namely the government, social media companies, parents, digital rights advocates, and a teenager at 16 years of age. This helped whittle down the broader spectrum of interests to something more specific and personal, which informed the view from each one’s seat at the table. This step helped establish clearly what each group wanted, and imbued the focus with a sense of care and passion for the worldview each wanted to protect. 

Following this, the group stayed in character to evaluate what each stakeholder held dear and what they might be willing to forego. There were interesting reflections on how parents felt like their rights around raising their children were threatened by the ban, and how teens felt like they were being painted in a single shade and forced to pay a penalty for their “inability to use the digital space safely.” This exchange led to a powerful reflection on how bans are, in themselves, patriarchal moves that reduce the subject of protection to an object of infantilism. There was a lingering question of whether bans can actually lead to protection or pave the way for greater harm that goes unreported, unnoticed, and unaddressed. While those representing the government and social media companies reflected on being open to cooperating with each other, there was also the unnamed vested interest lurking behind their expressions - of surveillance and data extraction for greater uses beyond protection and safety. Giving up on this would mean a loss of power for both, which consider power vital to their very existence and operation. 

In exploring what they may be willing to forego, the group interestingly presented a situation where stakeholders other than the government and social media companies were willing to forego certain things, such as giving up unfettered access to social media in favour of age appropriate filters and being okay with some data provision for age verification processes. However, the collective voice of these stakeholders also affirmed a staunch refusal to sacrifice children’s mental well-being and digital skills, both of which were considered fundamental for their futures. 

Finally, in offering up a policy alternative, the group noted the following suggestions as alternatives:

• Legal mandate to offer proactive 24/7 tech support for anyone targeted by technology facilitated gender based violence victims and those who need tech support 

• School, university curriculum sessions on digital literacy, ethics, values, conflict mediation, prevention of bullying, mental health access and discussion should all be incorporated in school and university curriculums. For younger populations, access to social media should be supported by an adult  

• Regular sessions on online safety for parents must be mandatory.

• Platforms should obtain parental account consent for the creation of accounts for children aged below 16 years.

• Screen-time bans for children aged below 16 years so that apps shut down after certain hours and thus not interfere with the children’s sleep cycles.  

• An independent steering committee should be appointed to audit tech platforms and current impacts of social media annually. Tech companies should mandatorily present their audited annual reports on their platforms to Child Rights bodies to pass their scrutiny. 

• Accountability measures should be put in place to address the violation of children’s rights and human rights, and for conducting surveillance through platforms.

• Platforms should be upfront about what they offer and how they protect data. The default should be to opt-out, and anyone opting in should be equipped with all the relevant information so that their consent is actually informed and specific. 

•  Recommender algorithms should not be predatory or encourage addiction. There needs to be some check-and-balance about these features and changes introduced into the platform. 

• A multistakeholder approach should be embedded in practice. All stakeholders must work together to protect the interests of children. 

• Content moderation: Content that should not make it online should simply not exist. This means that we should go beyond blocking accounts to actually blocking the server used to host the inappropriate content, because merely blocking or banning users might only mean that they may come back with a different name or ID.