bbc.com
80% of Australian Children Aged 8-12 Use Over-13s Social Media Apps
New research reveals over 80% of Australian children aged 8-12 use social media apps designed for over-13s, prompting Australia's planned social media ban for under-16s by year's end; the eSafety commissioner criticizes apps' lack of age verification.
- How do the roles of parents and social media companies contribute to underage social media use in Australia?
- This widespread underage social media use highlights inconsistencies in age verification across platforms, with only 13% of underage accounts shut down. Over half of children in this age group accessed these platforms through parental accounts, while a third had their own, often with parental assistance. This points to a significant gap between stated age restrictions and actual usage patterns.
- What are the immediate implications of the finding that over 80% of Australian children aged 8-12 use social media platforms intended for over-13s?
- More than 80% of Australian children aged 8-12 use social media platforms designed for over-13s, despite planned social media bans for under-16s by year's end. YouTube, TikTok, and Snapchat are the most popular among this age group. The eSafety commissioner cites a "lack of robust interventions" by these platforms in age verification.
- What are the potential long-term consequences of insufficient age verification and the planned under-16 social media ban in Australia and its potential impact on other countries?
- Australia's planned under-16 social media ban, and the UK's consideration of a similar measure, reflects growing global concern over children's online safety. The report's findings underscore the need for more effective age verification methods and proactive interventions by social media companies. Failure to adequately address this issue could lead to increased regulatory scrutiny and potential legal challenges.
Cognitive Concepts
Framing Bias
The headline and introduction immediately emphasize the high percentage of children using age-restricted platforms, setting a negative tone and focusing on the problem before presenting potential solutions or mitigating factors. The framing consistently prioritizes the negative consequences, which might influence readers towards supporting a ban more readily.
Language Bias
The article uses relatively neutral language, although words like "accused" and "lack of robust interventions" in reference to the social media companies carry a somewhat negative connotation. More neutral phrasing such as "reported to have shortcomings in" or "identified areas for improvement in" might offer a more balanced perspective.
Bias by Omission
The article focuses heavily on the Australian government's planned ban and the eSafety report's findings, but it omits discussion of potential benefits of social media use for children, such as educational opportunities or social connection. The article also doesn't explore alternative solutions or approaches to regulating children's online activity beyond outright bans. The lack of diverse viewpoints from child psychologists or child development experts could limit the reader's understanding of the issue's complexities.
False Dichotomy
The article presents a somewhat false dichotomy by framing the issue as either a complete ban or the status quo, without exploring alternative regulatory models or approaches that might provide more nuanced solutions. It also simplifies the potential harms of social media by focusing primarily on the age verification failures.
Sustainable Development Goals
The article highlights that over 80% of Australian children aged 8-12 use social media platforms designed for over-13s, exposing them to potential harms and hindering their healthy development. This impacts their well-being and ability to focus on education, thus negatively affecting SDG 4 (Quality Education) which promotes inclusive and equitable quality education and promotes lifelong learning opportunities for all.