My Concerns and Why I Believe it Will Fail Kids
Author: Mark Bolton. Subbing: DeepSeek
Dear Carolynn,
This is my first blog since the death a few weeks ago of my younger brother, Steven. I hope you and my late father were there to greet him when he crossed over. I’m sure I’ll write about Steven at a later date; still far too raw for me at the moment. Now, though, I want to focus on the Australian government’s new plan to ban social media for under-16s. And if you are outside Australia, don’t think this isn’t being looked at everywhere. And this is more than just a freedom of speech issue.
Firstly, I share everyone’s worry about kids online – it’s a minefield out there. The intent to give kids a healthier childhood is something I genuinely believe comes from a good place and that intent should applauded. In fact, It’s important to remember that this push didn’t come from nowhere. It’s been driven, in large part, by the heartbreaking advocacy of parents who have lost children to suicide, and who see the toxic underbelly of social media as a contributing factor.
That grief and demand for change is real, powerful, and deserves our utmost respect. But the more I sit with this specific solution—a blanket ban—the more I worry we’re taking that justified anguish and building a response that doesn’t quite fit the problem. In fact, I fear it’s a classic case of us in the West doing what we always do—treat the symptom while ignoring the root cause.
The deeper worry is what this ban ignores. In Australia, we trust a 14-year-old to be home alone after school or at night—the law and our welfare system see them as old enough for that responsibility. Yet this ban says that anyone up to 16-years-old is incapable of watching or reading (government selected) social media apps, even if with guidance.
We’re ignoring all the nuance. For some teens, especially those feeling isolated or different, these platforms are their vital connection to a non-mainstream community that understands them. Severing that lifeline overnight in the name of protection could, for some, create the very sense of isolation we’re trying to prevent. Let’s not forget there a severely disabled kids, kids house or hospital-bound with cancer, burns and many other physical as well as mental health situations where isolation is more dangerous than the social media apps themselves.
And that leads to my most conflicted concern. What if this well-intentioned wall of protection, built from a place of wanting to stop harm, inadvertently causes a different kind? If the worst were to happen because a child felt cut off, the backlash would be devastating. What then? Do we risk creating a public debate between bereaved parents who lost a child because of social media by pitting them against bereaved parents who lost a child because of isolation due to the ban of social media? The public then gets to pick sides over whose children must ‘take one for the team‘?
Something else to consider: what if an insecure young person sees on the nightly TV news a story that tips him or her over the edge? Do we ban TV news for under 16’s? Do we make free-to-air-TV subscription-based too? Do we all also have to show our proof of age and private information to get access to Channel 9? Do we in Australia also ban VPNs? If not, are the VPN companies also at risk of prosecution under Australian law? Do we ban schools to protect vulnerable kids from bullying? Text messaging? Emails? Snail mail? The risks are everywhere.
But here’s the core of it, Carolynn. This legislation proves we’re looking in the wrong place. We’re so focused on the back end—banning the apps—that we’re neglecting the core: building resilient, confident kids in the first place, proper education to prevent the bullies who themselves have self-esteem issues. Punishment if necessary. Where is the systemic push for these things?
Maybe a very simple, yet profound act of spending quality, undistracted time with our kids—whether we’re worn-out parents just surviving or, let’s be honest, sometimes too self-absorbed is a much better solution? Where are our schools and clubs in moving beyond just rewarding participation, to actively identifying a child’s unique skills and talents and guiding them to build genuine self-esteem from within?
A ban is a technical fix for a human problem. It may let social media companies off the hook for their predatory designs, yes. But it also lets us off the hook—as a society, as communities, and as families—for failing to give our kids the internal tools they need to navigate social media and a complex world, online and off.
In the end, ironically, this policy not only weakens resilience building, it also puts another burden on parents as enforcers, risks creating new conflicts at home, and could drive kids activity underground. Then there are the kids whose parents allow access because they have proven faith in their children. Therefore, we create yet another problem. Example: “Mum and dad, John’s parents let him use YouTube, why won’t you let me?” And what if Mum is for the ban but dad feels the same way as John’s parents? More conflict with their kids caught in the middle.
I understand that it reads like I’m defeating my own argument about kids being taught resilience…but not like this. The age restriction is not just a ‘have and have nots‘ situation, nor a, ‘son, you just have to accept it‘. No, this will become ‘those who are allowed and those who are not‘ in an environment that is supposed to be ‘nobody under 16 is allowed‘. In itself, this law creates those who do have access and those who are left out. A high risk tactic in a young demographic with large numbers who are insecure in the first place because we don’t give them the strength required to survive harsh realities of life before they become young adults.
Vulnerable kids who live in the banned world aren’t going to be less vulnerable because they turn 16. In reality, some will likely be unpracticed and therefore more vulnerable at 16.
Of course, then there is the legal issue: how on earth is it policed? We’re not talking about checking an ID at a pub. We’re talking about the entire global internet. Every time a major tech company makes a blunder, innocent or otherwise, they will tie up Australian courts for years, defending their actions as well as arguing about privacy and overreach. While society and the lawyers argue, kids will just get better at lying, or worse, flee to darker, less regulated corners of the web where no safety rules exist at all. It feels to me like we are putting up another chain wire fence to again prevent flood waters entering our property.
Social media isn’t the problem for kids. We are the problem! I see in a lot of young people today a lack of critical thinking and resilience. Or extreme rebels who don’t fit in and do it their way. Our solution to the problem? Either we put them in even thicker cotton wool or turn them into cyber criminals where, ironically, the victim of fraud will be the one punished?
This is not me defending social media because social media can be just as dangerous as any other media can be. How many lives were lost because we bought into the lies we were told after 9/11? Mainstream media pushed this agenda, and continues to push propaganda. We just blindly accept corporate media. We shun independent as well as social media and buy into labelling them both as dangerous because we prefer to buy into the myths and lies.
Maybe I’m being too cynical, but it feels like we’re reaching for a simple, legislative answer to a huge and growing problem that starts in our living rooms, our classrooms, and our own attention spans. Remember, we were excited about the internet when it first started, but we didn’t foresee the problems ahead because we didn’t look. We are doing it again now with AI. A blanket ban without proper consideration of all of the grey areas is well intentioned, but bloody stupid because it will achieve nothing if a ban is all it is about.
In memory of my brother, Steven Bolton 3/5/62 to 5/10/2025. RIP, man.
Leave a Reply