Will banning social media for teenagers help?
Experts are wary of the attempt, call for regulation of the algorithm, and suspect that children under 16 will find ways to circumvent the barriers.
BarcelonaThe Spanish government is promoting the law for the protection of minors in the digital environment, which is currently undergoing parliamentary process. Among the measures it includes is a ban on accessing social media if you are under 16 years of age. The measure is controversial because, although there is consensus on the harmful effects of these platforms on adolescents, there is disagreement about its effectiveness. Some warn that it does not address the root problem, which is the very nature of algorithms that promote toxicity, polarization, addiction, distraction, or conflicts with one's own body.
"I'm concerned about the approach being taken," explains Liliana Arroyo, a doctor in sociology and specialist in digital social innovation. "It seems more evident than ever to me that the solution is not prohibition but support and education. We must make it illegal to exploit attention and engage in marketing with data," she adds. Regarding the measure of delaying access to the age of 16, she considers it "postponing the problem because it doesn't address the root cause." In fact, she even sees it as counterproductive: "It can aggravate the problem, because if the first contact is at 16 and there hasn't been this progressive and appropriate support, the effects can be even worse."
Arroyo also suggests that this concept of techno-legal solutionism ends up creating "more distance between the adults in charge and the adolescents if the adults are the constant reminder of the prohibition": "In the end, these measures cause parental responsibilities regarding technology to be delegated to the law." The sociologist also points out that the measures implemented can be easily circumvented with the use of, for example, VPN networks, applications that allow the site from which the connection is made to be masked and, therefore, circumvent the controls of a specific state.
So, what should be the role of the administration? "Public policies should understand that this isn't a fight that families or schools have to wage alone," Arroyo explains, adding: "We need to find a way to incorporate adolescents into the digital world in a progressive and proportionate manner. Creating an itinerary by age could be useful. And it's good that questions about screens have been incorporated into the visits, which would be a space to provide references. Ultimately, it's necessary to generate consensus and public opinion, based on the idea that each family chooses its parenting model and there will always be some discretion."
Digital inevitability
Among critics of the approach based on access prohibition, there is also a certain consensus when it comes to criticizing the words we usually use to describe this problem. The term screen addicts, for example, generates controversy. According to a UNICEF report, in developed countries it is estimated that one in five adolescents is addicted to social media or online games and video games, and of these, one in ten will eventually suffer from depression. But beyond this, situations of abuse or problematic use can occur outside of daily screen time.
However, we must be careful when talking about addiction. "I think talking about adolescents in general as addicts is a fallacy. As a clinical symptom, they do not exceed 3.5%, in a use that includes 95% of the population. It is not negligible, but it is not epidemic," explains José Ramón Ubieto, clinical psychologist and psychoanalyst, author Addicts or lovers? Keys to digital mental health in children and adolescents. The data comes from the Bellvitge gambling addiction unit and is similar to that of other studies, which speak of 25-30% of young people who engage in overuse (non-pathological) or 10% who engage in problematic practices (other than addiction to the screen itself).
"In a colloquial sense, of course, we are all addicts. But we should ask ourselves if there is any relationship between the way we refer to teenagers and positions close to far-right populisms," considers Ubieto. "We treat them as addicts, autistic, violent... We call them from a deficit. Adolescents fascinate us because of their maximum instinctual power, but at the same time they horrify us when we see their most fanatical side. Obviously, they involve problems, but we see them as too pathological," he opines, and proposes the term phygital –hybrid of physical and digital– to assume that there are no longer two distinct worlds, one online and an offline one, but both occur simultaneously, and therefore, approaches based on prohibition are unrealistic. Love can also be toxic. Let's say they have a complicated relationship... with cell phones." Arroyo agrees that it's very different to tell a teenager "You're hooked on your cell phone," with the burden that entails, than "You're not listening to me," which appeals to the value of interpersonal communication ~B At least try
One of the voices in favor of the ban is Jordi Royo e Isach, a psychologist and clinical director of Amalgama 7, a practice with several residential centers currently serving 181 young people with various disorders. The center serves as a hospital, school, summer camp, and student residence, with four corresponding teams for each. "The fact that five ministries are involved is good news. Sometimes we've worked too hard like taifa kingdoms where each one waged its own war, and therefore it's good to see them talking about protecting physical, psychological, and emotional health from a cross-cutting perspective."
Royo welcomes the ban on access for minors under 16 and also defends the right for parents or guardians to be able to supervise teenagers' use of devices: "At some point we will have to answer, within the law, what priorities do children have or not? They have every right to look at their trousers, their drawers... and their mobile phone, if they have a reasonable suspicion that they may be the victim of any kind of abuse." And he states: "A minor under 14 is not liable and until the age of 18 the parents are subsidiarily responsible. Well, if they have responsibility, they should also have the authority."
This psychologist believes that the key is enforcement: "Minors cannot buy alcohol by law, but we know that they can get it easily. In Finland, on the other hand, nobody takes the risk because they know that the consequences, if they get caught, are much more serious."
Royo is critical of the penetration that screens have achieved: "They are not an option, they are an obligation. Teenagers cannot decide whether they want them or not; it has become a necessity and anyone who does not have the latest and most powerful mobile phone is an outcast. Screen addiction brings obvious problems. We have A syndrome skyrocketing." They sleep an hour and 45 minutes less than in the era before smartphones, there are more cases of ADHD... Given this panorama, identifying the ages should serve to, from the outset, be able to protect at least those under 16 years old."
On the other hand, Simona Levi, president of the Xnet platform, dedicated to the defense of digital rights, believes that the measures that promote access barriers are out of focus. "Rather than banning users, what should be done is ban algorithms that polarize, hook and promote aggressive and hateful messages," she explains to this newspaper. "In the same way that the sale of toxic banking products is not allowed, neither should algorithms be allowed to be toxic. That is why we ask for the algorithm to be transparent. The 'scroll Infinite has long been known to be harmful. Perhaps we should enforce, for example, a pause every twenty messages, to ask for active confirmation that you want to continue downloading. Musk says it's all about freedom of expression, but it's not. For them, it's a business. So what we should do is not touch the user, but that toxic business.
