B8: Supporting a Social Media Ban for Children

This motion seems to me to be the opposite of the direction we as the young greens should be going

The motion specifies that it would not block young people from accessing content. That was to directly address this kind of concern, as I'm aware of how vital the support networks for marginalised groups are. By allowing them to still access content, they will still be able to find additional support as and when they need it on social media without the additional harm that comes with the way social media is currently set up. There is also lots of other support out there not on social media.

This isn't specified in the motion, however the spirit of the motion is that U16s in general would not be allowed to create content. There are plenty of people over the age of 16 who are more than capable of helping to create social media content for volunteer organisations. Allowing U16s to help in these situations isn't worth the harm social media causes in my opinion.

To answer some of your points. I sent that message asking to delay a statement until after WGM not because I disagreed with the stance, but because it is a contentious issue that I know a lot of people inside the party will have strong, differing opinions on. I wanted to make sure the Young Greens did not put out a statement that the membership disagreed with. I have brought this motion to ensure we get a consensus on where the membership stands, after which a statement can be put out. This is also something that could have been discussed in private and not in a public forum.

In your position as joint Under 18s officer, you have a right to have your opinion heard about this motion and any motion that affects Under 18s, but that doesn't mean you have to be consulted on every motion that will affect Under 18s. I felt I did not need to discuss this, I was writing this motion from the perspective of someone who has significant personal experience with social media and the harm that it inflicts on people under the age of 18. My own life experiences, along with research online, are the consultations I had with Under 18s.

As to the contents, yes the effects don't just end on your 16th birthday, but the effects of alcohol or gambling or smoking don't just end on your 18th birthday. The age limits of regulated goods and services are set to a point where people can make an informed decision about interacting with those goods and services. This motion also does not absolve social media companies from guilt, nor detract from the legislation attempting to make social media safer. This motion is not the ideal solution, but no other solutions have worked, and social media companies have proven time and time again that they will circumvent any attempts to enforce content moderation on them. All they care about is there bottom line, not user safety. They don't self-regulate, and cannot be trusted to.

Social media is also inherently addictive. No matter what laws and regulations we put towards social media companies, it will always be addictive. This means it will never be safe for children, and so just like other addictive goods and services, there should be restrictions in place.

Enforcement would be down to social media companies. If they fail to enforce it correctly, and loop holes are able to be exploited, or data is leaked, they would be fined for that, as is the system with the Australian ban. It is deliberately done like this to avoid the issues with the Online Safety Act. The Online Safety Act also does not cover an addictive good or service, whereas this does, meaning they are two separate issues which should not be equated.

The majority of the harm of social media does come from the content served to people using an algorithm. The point your missing here is the way that the algorithms work. Algorithms work by looking at how a user with an account interacts with content. If you don't have an account and cannot interact with content, the algorithm cannot learn about you, assign specific learnings about you nor push personalised content to you. The really dangerous stuff is the personalised content. Removing the ability to create accounts and interact with content also removes the potential for cyber bullying.

Finally, if you or Esther would feel uncomfortable working with the national party on this, then that's your right. The Young Greens executive and officers are elected not to impart their own opinions to the national party, but to put the concerns and opinions of all Young Greens members. If this passed and you or Esther feel you can no longer represent the beliefs of the Young Greens as a whole due to your own beliefs, then it is your prerogative to either resign or ask someone else to take the responsibility of promoting this motion instead.

I hope this response answers your concerns, but feel free to put any more issues you have below.

Personally I am conflicted on the issue, and it is something I would be happy to consider at a future time. However, the main point of the motion is to bring social media in line with other harmful, addictive goods and services, such as alcohol and gambling. Considering these only have a lower age limit and not an upper one, I would say no to that for this motion and would like to have this motion debated as is. I do also have some reservations about the practicality of it, as it would be very hard to implement, much harder than just a simple age limit. There is also concern that it would become or be seen as "stupid people can't use social media", even if that isn't how it would be intended nor written. However, I understand social media does have different consequences to other harmful goods and services such as alcohol and gambling, and can see the benefit of an upper age limit/capability testing, and wouldn't be opposed to discussing this as a future motion separate to this one.

I believe there to be plenty of communities outside of social media young people can be a part of. If anything, would be good for young people to be forced to find communities in real life and not just on social media.