Australia’s landmark legislation banning social media access for under-16s has ignited intense debate here, leaving figures, parental and youth rights campaigners divided over the potential implementation of similar restrictions locally.
The world-first law, passed by Australia’s parliament on November 28, mandates tech companies to prevent underage users from accessing social media platforms or face fines approaching AUD$50 million ($64.5 million). Prime Minister Anthony Albanese argues the legislation is crucial for protecting young people from social media’s potential harms.
Paula-Ann Moore, spokesperson for the Group of Concerned Parents of Barbados, believes the government should stage a national debate to weigh the pros and cons of implementing such a law here.
“This type of regulation can be seen as reinforcement of the parental role and the parental responsibility because obviously it’s not meant to be a replacement of that responsibility,” Moore said.
She pointed out that a ban on social media for children under 16 raises concerns about balancing parental responsibilities and government intervention.
“The dangers of social media and access to the internet. And I think the younger that children are exposed to it, the greater the risk that they may fall victim to whether it’s predators, of course, the access to porn is a huge factor,” she added.
Moore also cited research linking social media use to negative impacts on mental health: “Then all of what we’ve seen, the data and the research have come out on how those social media platforms can impact negatively on children’s self-esteem, fear of missing out, anxiety, and unfortunately cyberbullying that’s also a great risk as well.”
June Moe, acting principal of Springer Memorial Secondary School, applauded Australia’s decision and emphasised the dangers of unregulated screen time.
“As educators, we see firsthand the dangers that increased screen time, exposure to platforms that are not monitored. We see the dangers daily that it has on students under 16,” Moe said.
She praised Australia’s proactive approach: “I applaud Australia for removing devices for children whose minds are not yet fully developed. These devices not only promote a sedentary lifestyle but also lead to an anti-social one.”
The principal noted that while children may appear social online, they often struggle with interpersonal interactions. “Younger persons have lost the ability to engage one-on-one or in small groups because they’re accustomed to interacting with a screen.”
Moe urged parents to become more informed and involved. “Parents are the ones providing the devices. I urge them to read, research, and understand the dangers of excessive screen time. Many platforms expose children to harmful situations, from psychological harm to meeting strangers with dangerous intentions,” she said.
But youth advocate Caleb Brathwaite opposed the idea of a ban while insisting on greater parental control instead.
Brathwaite, the president of the Barbados Youth Development Council (BYDC), said: “There should be more parental control… greater rules in terms of monitoring their children’s use of social media, as well as educating them of the correct use of social media, and also to see how that information technology being taught within the educational system can also play that role, so that it is constant, and that is the correct use of social media.”
He argued that age restrictions already exist on most platforms and suggested that additional rules may not be necessary.
While Moore believes the idea of enforcing a similar ban has merit, she noted significant challenges.
She said: “For you to implement the age limit and then enforce it, there’s certain data that you would have to provide. So, the argument could be made, I think, with some success, but if already we’re having data breaches on several different elements of our life, do we wait, until we have some assurance that we are ready from a technological point of view, to ensure that those data breaches are minimised, are we even ready?”
