Nelson Decorrado.
A clear-cut ban on social media won’t work. Regulating influence would be a more impactful solution. Nelson Decorrado explains.
While the Australian Government’s ban on social media for under-16s instinctively feels bold and decisive, with tech-savvy teens already plotting ways around it, it may well have no impact at all.
It’s an example of a policy that satisfies the public psychologically but is pointless in practicality.
To be clear, I support the government taking action in this area. We need drastic change. But banning social media for teenagers is akin to banning forks to curb obesity: targeting the visible implement, not the invisible cause.
The real issue is not that children use social media. More so, they are being used by it. They have become the attention economy’s newest commodity.
Instead of banning social media altogether, a better solution would be to regulate the content.
Protecting young minds
There are very real risks associated with creators posting and publishing mis/disinformation. Young minds are malleable and easily influenced, and unfortunately, many young Australians are not taught media literacy.
As it stands, social media creators can get away with almost anything. This has social, political, and even public health ramifications.
Take the example of the 2014 ‘Bikini Body guides’ produced by Australian influencer Kayla Itsines. The guides originally included meal plans with calorie counts around half of what a somewhat active 30-year-old woman requires. Health and nutrition experts have since deemed this content unsafe, and the guides were updated. But at the time, did young people consuming this content realise it was harmful?
Research unequivocally shows that diet culture is a significant risk factor for the development of eating disorders. So who should take responsibility for this?
Should social media platforms be supported, or even required to, suppress the potential reach of similarly harmful messaging?
From health risks to inciting violence, attention-optimised social media feeds are echo chambers. In recent years, they have been linked to the spread of extremism and radicalisation, which has led to real-world violence.
Creators and influencers can build audiences and spread conspiracies or extreme narratives quickly because these platforms reward engagement, not accuracy. Isn’t that the real problem?
The regulation of influence
Australian broadcasting codes of practice applied to other media, such as television and radio, mean that advertisers are on the hook for the content they create. They cannot, for example, mislead consumers or advertise wagering during live sport.
Could we not apply a similar logic to creators and influencers on social media platforms who often carry more weight in shaping the worldview of young people than TV ads?
I’m not talking about censorship, but a responsible content creation architecture where responsibility scales with influence, and algorithms reward creators that make content which is educational, informative and socially acceptable.
It might seem idealistic, but why not implement a classification system for creators built on self-selection? This could allow the platforms to weigh the volume of content served to different audiences according to the creator classifications.
Platforms could then block underage or at-risk audiences from seeing content from less regulated creator classifications and less compliant creators.
An ethical responsibility
Creators have an ethical responsibility to consider how their content spills over to – even if not designed for – youth audiences.
When content is published that is provocative or ‘boundary-pushing’, it taps into reward-seeking psychological mechanisms that young people cannot properly regulate.
In fact, young people form parasocial bonds with creators more easily and intensely than adults, with one study finding it can take just four weeks for adolescents to establish trust with influencers, alarmingly, even AI-generated influencers. Repeated exposure fosters an emotional attachment to creators, which means they’re more receptive to what a creator has to say.
Young audiences may internalise messaging and behaviour that is not meant for them, highlighting a need for creators to be made aware of their audience make-ups in order to ethically produce suitable content.
Where a platform magnifies the most engaging content – usually the most extreme or provocative – creators are rewarded for creating content of this nature, which then forms an escalation loop where they’re incentivised to produce more extreme content, heightening youth risk.
That’s why the ban misses the point. Instead of saying adult creators need to be conscious of their audience and produce content worthy of their young audience’s trust, the government is instead insinuating children can’t be trusted.
Without an ethical framework or content creation guidelines, there are no guidelines or recourse to ensure creators do the right thing.
Ultimately, what young people need is protection from manipulative structures, as opposed to restriction from digital spaces. It feels like a missed opportunity for the government to choose a narrative about responsibility and trust as opposed to control.
If creators are the new mega brands of the attention economy, it’s time to hold them to the same ethical standards as brands in the traditional economy.
Nelson Decorrado is a Strategy and Planning Director at media agency Hatched.