podcast friday
Jan. 2nd, 2026 09:40 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
sabotabbyMostly everyone is dormant in the podcast world during Void Week, but Tech Won't Save Us got out a cool one: "How Effective Is Australia's Social Media Age Limit?" with Cam Wilson. Cam has been on the show before, before the ban was implemented. It's now only a week or two into the ban, so early to say if it has done anything good for kids, but he talks a lot about the technical challenges, privacy concerns, and the political and economic interests shaping the ban.
I am flat-out against bans like this (though I will listen to opposing POVs) for a bunch of reasons:
1) The disastrous effect it has on queer and trans kids outside of major urban centres.
2) The fact that there is no equivalent ban for chatbots (meaning that lonely, isolated kids will increasingly turn to chatbots rather than other kids for company).
3) The privacy violations and additional surveillance for adult users (i.e., having to upload their face or donate more information for data-mining to prove their age).
4) My general shitlib opinions about free speech, which includes kids.
5) The methodology of the research that suggests social media is bad for kids. To be clear, I think social media is bad for kids, but I don't think the research is very good at proving it.
6) The lack of anything that addresses the real problems that lead to harmful social media practices, which include inaccessibility of public spaces for youth (and older people!), helicopter parenting/overscheduling, policing of parenting (i.e., parents being disciplined for allowing their kids to roam free), algorithmic instead of chronological timelines and post promotion, the infestation of ads/chatbots/surveillance tech in all social media spaces.
Cam doesn't talk enough about the first two issues imo, but he does have very interesting things about the privacy concerns and especially about how other, non-banning solutions, would have produced better results. For example, forcing these companies to build versions of their platforms that were safe for kids would provide an off-ramp from the block and, by extension, make us aware that a safer, better experience is possible for all of us. He also walks us through the process of the ban, its initial aims, what the final legislation looks like, and the way in which campaigns can gain steam very quickly, become watered down by corporate interests, and ultimately declare total victory based on one or two points.
At any rate, it's interesting to listen to, and I hope he does a followup later on so we can see how it worked out on the ground and if it had any positive effects at all.
I am flat-out against bans like this (though I will listen to opposing POVs) for a bunch of reasons:
1) The disastrous effect it has on queer and trans kids outside of major urban centres.
2) The fact that there is no equivalent ban for chatbots (meaning that lonely, isolated kids will increasingly turn to chatbots rather than other kids for company).
3) The privacy violations and additional surveillance for adult users (i.e., having to upload their face or donate more information for data-mining to prove their age).
4) My general shitlib opinions about free speech, which includes kids.
5) The methodology of the research that suggests social media is bad for kids. To be clear, I think social media is bad for kids, but I don't think the research is very good at proving it.
6) The lack of anything that addresses the real problems that lead to harmful social media practices, which include inaccessibility of public spaces for youth (and older people!), helicopter parenting/overscheduling, policing of parenting (i.e., parents being disciplined for allowing their kids to roam free), algorithmic instead of chronological timelines and post promotion, the infestation of ads/chatbots/surveillance tech in all social media spaces.
Cam doesn't talk enough about the first two issues imo, but he does have very interesting things about the privacy concerns and especially about how other, non-banning solutions, would have produced better results. For example, forcing these companies to build versions of their platforms that were safe for kids would provide an off-ramp from the block and, by extension, make us aware that a safer, better experience is possible for all of us. He also walks us through the process of the ban, its initial aims, what the final legislation looks like, and the way in which campaigns can gain steam very quickly, become watered down by corporate interests, and ultimately declare total victory based on one or two points.
At any rate, it's interesting to listen to, and I hope he does a followup later on so we can see how it worked out on the ground and if it had any positive effects at all.
no subject
Date: 2026-01-02 03:18 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2026-01-02 04:05 pm (UTC)And kids are some of the most unheard.
no subject
Date: 2026-01-02 03:54 pm (UTC)its rough because i want the giant corps held accountable, but the smaller folks (e.g., dreamwidth) should kinda just be allowed to do as they wish? idk. im thinking out loud here.
no subject
Date: 2026-01-02 04:04 pm (UTC)So we can ban them, but it’s not going to do anything unless it’s backed up by age verification requirements that present onerous restraints and expenses on everyone, and even then, some kids will just get older friends to verify for them.
no subject
Date: 2026-01-02 04:09 pm (UTC)im super open to being wrong tho. this isnt a hill i wanna die on. i just dont know what a solution could/would be that isnt just laissez faire
also the barriers to entry are how i got so good at computers! so, yanno, the really determined kids become Good At Computer too which is an added bonus.
no subject
Date: 2026-01-02 04:13 pm (UTC)Forcing companies to either 1) develop non-algorithmic kid-friendly versions or 2) be banned is a better option than just a straight-up ban imo.
no subject
Date: 2026-01-02 04:12 pm (UTC)It's actually a very similar problem as drinking. I was allowed to drink from an early age if I wanted to, and throughout my teenage years, my friends and I would drink in our homes with adults around in case anything bad happened. My peers who started drinking at age 19 and were also living independently for the first time absolutely couldn't handle it, and developed binge-drinking habits and toxic relationships with alcohol that my high school friends and I mostly don't have.
no subject
Date: 2026-01-02 04:09 pm (UTC)The problems are always multifold, the big one being "how do you determine if an Instagram profile belongs to a teenager or an adult?" That to me is the most interesting discussion in this episode, because it's not just about restricting access to the teenager, but confirming the age of the adult. I know at least one Australian, for example, who told me that they won't be on Meta because they'd have to upload ID or a photo, which they don't want to do for obvious reasons.
no subject
Date: 2026-01-02 04:12 pm (UTC)and yeah, if meta made me upload my ID, I'd just be done with it. Thats a bridge to far for me and I don't even like the damn website.
I do think the fact that my gmail account is probably over 18 years old at this point (Just did the math... 20 years old...) means I am probably not a child. but idek how you would delineate beyond something obvious like that.
and praise science there aren't (many) teens here lol. Let me be geriatric in peace! XDDD
no subject
Date: 2026-01-02 04:15 pm (UTC)