Mireia Montaña Blasco: "Banning social media is much cheaper than educating people."

BarcelonaWhat should the relationship between parents and their children be like when the latter begin to delve into the world of social media? How do the algorithms work? What security measures should families and children take? Or what red lines cannot be crossed to guarantee good management? A window in your pocket (Editorial Mediterrània) is a family story, funded by the Ministry of Science, Innovation and Universities, that answers all these questions. The story stems from three years of research by communication PhDs Mireia Montaña Blasco, from the UOC, and Mònika Jiménez-Morales, from the UPF, on how young people use social media. More than 1,000 teenagers between the ages of 12 and 18 participated in the research, explaining how they use platforms like TikTok and what the consequences are.

The book begins with a family that initially seems to have established limits regarding screen time. However, these limits actually end up being much more lax, to the point that screens become an important element in their daily lives. Is this exaggeration intentional, or is it a common situation?

— It's commonplace. In fact, you only have to go to a restaurant to see two- or three-year-olds with screens so their parents can eat in peace. It's a way to keep them entertained without considering the impact this can have on the children. Furthermore, statistics show that many children as young as ten already have mobile phones, and their parents often don't monitor what their children are doing. Many parents think they're setting limits, but these are merely quantitative, such as limiting phone use to a maximum of half an hour. The problem is that they don't monitor what their children are doing during those 30 minutes, what kind of content they're consuming, what pops up on their screens, or whether they're interacting with strangers.

Are adults part of the problem? Are we demanding that our children use their phones in a way that we ourselves don't?

— If we want our children to use cell phones in a healthy way, without it harming them—because cell phones are neither good nor bad—we must do the same. We can't be at the dinner table constantly checking their phones. WhatsApps or to answer our head while we're having lunch.

What should parents monitor when their children are using mobile phones?

— What we've seen during this project is that social media heavily stereotypes content: girls are expected to be pretty, somewhat passive, etc., and boys are expected to be athletic, entrepreneurial... These are traditional gender roles based on sexism. The problem is that 16- and 18-year-olds see this as normal; they're internalizing it because TikTok is their reality, and this reality is being amplified by the algorithm. Given this situation, it's clear that a lot of work needs to be done before young people even have mobile phones.

What is the most underestimated risk for families?

— Girls are at greater risk than boys because they find it harder to put their phones down. During the research, the young people explained that when TikTok alerted them that they had been using the platform for two hours, the boys were able to disconnect and question why they were wasting time on nonsense when they could be chatting, playing games, or doing something else with their friends. In contrast, the girls admitted that, although the content wasn't good for them because it was affecting their self-esteem, they didn't know how to disconnect.

When is it considered that social media is being used harmfully, even if we have already normalized it?

— What we've seen, by cross-referencing variables of emotional well-being with the use of social media and mobile devices, is that it becomes harmful after two hours of use on TikTok. In the study, 25% of the girls spent more than two hours a day on the platform, and we've found that this is detrimental to their digital well-being.

One aspect we often overlook, and which is explained in the book, is the role of algorithms. Are algorithms educating teenagers alongside families and schools?

— What the algorithms are doing, as we were saying, is reinforcing gender roles: girls are expected to spend all day looking good, and boys are expected to be strong or extroverted. The question is, from a family perspective, I don't know to what extent they are critical of this content, considering they prioritize the amount of time their children spend on social media over the content they consume.

Do we place too little responsibility on technology companies?

— This book also stems in part from that desire to be a tool to help families. Based on scientific research that demonstrates the harm social media is doing to young people, we're trying to lobby for tech companies to conduct more frequent audits. It's unacceptable that TikTok only audits its users once a year, and the way the algorithm is audited is equally unacceptable: it checks for violent content, but perhaps the traditional gender roles it promotes are also a form of gender-based violence, and that's not being analyzed.

Some countries, such as Australia either now SpainPeople are already calling for stricter controls on these tech companies. Even Europe announced last night that it wants to ban internet use for under 16s across the continent. Will it do any good?

— These are large companies with a lot of power. In Australia, which has already set an age limit, we're seeing young people cheating, pretending to connect from another country to gain access. It's very difficult to guarantee that they won't actually connect before a certain age. Likewise, our conclusion, based on everything we've seen in the project, is that there's no magic age. At 16 or 18, a young person isn't automatically equipped to face a digital reality they haven't yet encountered. Rather than setting an age, we believe what we should do is give them the tools to become digitally competent so they know how to navigate what they're seeing; so they're capable of critical thinking, of discerning whether something is done with artificial intelligence; whether it's a fake newsThey should seek to compare sources; if they see that something is harming them, they should distance themselves or discuss it at home with their family.

Is banning social media educating or surrendering?

— Banning is much cheaper than educating. Educating is work; it means asking questions like, "How is this implemented in schools?" or "What tools should families be given?" Because families need to know these digital skills, they need to keep up to date; they can't leave all the responsibility to the schools.

At what age can children begin to understand this digital world?

— There's no magic age, but the sooner the better, because the digital world is here, especially considering that 10 is the age when many children start using mobile phones. To draw a parallel, you can drive from the age of 18, but first you need training. They don't just hand you the keys to a car and tell you "Drive" the day you turn 18, because you'd have an accident. Well, this same training is necessary here; you can have access to the internet, but first you need to be digitally competent.

What realistic guidelines can families apply without resorting to total prohibition?

— First, they should share all their passwords with their parents, in case they ever want to log in and supervise; they shouldn't talk to strangers: if you don't let your child walk down the street and start talking to everyone, then when they're in their room with their phone, they shouldn't talk to strangers either. They also need to develop critical thinking skills, discuss news stories, and say things like, "Listen, what you saw, do you think it's true?" At the same time, it's necessary to work on everything that is fake newsEye-catching headlines; in short, teach them to think beyond the surface, not to believe everything they see.