It’s been a week since Australian social networks had 1 million fewer users. This is the consequence of the start of the visit ban for children under 16 years old. In the country, the measure is popular: two-thirds of the population approve of it. But nothing is completely resolved. Some lawsuits are asking the Court to consider the measure unconstitutional, just as some Silicon Valley companies, like Reddit, are trying to more strictly define what a social network is. She swears not to be. It appears the law will remain in effect, at least for a few years. That’s what local analysts think. Because the world, from now on, will pay attention to it.
- Congress: The senatorial rapporteur on dosimetry must limit the project to those convicted on January 8
Adolescence is a difficult time. We have grown in size, but not in maturity. The hormone levels in the body, needed to turn children into adults, cause them to emit all sorts of odors and mess with their heads. Emotions in adolescence are all very intense. From joy to sadness. The bodies are disjointed. Everyone is deeply insecure and everyone wants to appear invincible. Sometimes they already look like adults, and the brain has not yet made all the synapses necessary to make decisions with a minimum of wisdom. It is during adolescence that we learn to live in a community, that we refine our abilities to collaborate, communicate, listen and know how to speak. Not to mention the sexualization, from love to pleasure, which we are beginning to discover.
- Malu Gaspar: Valdemar’s calculation to go all the way with Flávio, even if he prefers Tarcísio
Social networks have an editor. These are recommendation algorithms. The algorithm wants to discover what moves us all to the point of mobilizing us emotionally. When you discover it, you know it will capture our attention. We will give the subject as much attention as possible. And we will come back, we will always come back, for another little dose of dopamine. It works with all adults who authorize themselves to use networks. With teenagers, this works doubly. All the fashions that we tend to lean more towards are on the networks. Turbocharged. The tribalization of society encouraged by networks, in which we increasingly identify as members of groups that hate others, is also more acute among adolescents. And there is the question of self-image. Perfect body. The network is the territory of perfect women in bikinis in an eternal summer, men who are never flabby.
Is the idea of being on a social network a good idea at the same time as we are learning to live in a group? When do we still master the notion of status? We deeply want to be loved and desired, but we never think we can achieve it? Teenagers are cruel to each other. It is from cruelty that the fear of being cruel to oneself is born. The worst of adolescence, on the networks, is amplified. The humiliation, the cancellations, the feeling of inadequacy. Which, again, we all feel. (Even the ones who were the most popular at school.)
One argument against the ban is that it should be a parental decision. This should not be the case. Teenagers should be gregarious. Teenagers should share their experiences. If a young person does not have access to the network that all of their peers have, they are excluded from the collective experience. Collective experience is at the center of every adolescent’s life. This is the sort of thing that only functions as a blanket ban. In particular, this will not be the case.
We have already considered that there are experiences that are not intended for adolescents. Drink, smoke, drive. Even in the Penal Code, the most conservative among us agree that the criteria for deciding guilt are not equivalent for a person aged 14 and 18. Because we understand that the capacity for judgment evolves during this period. And it really changes. It’s not just a matter of perception, it’s science.
However, banning should not be the best option. Ideally, we would all understand how recommendation algorithms manipulate emotions. Or, companies would be more responsible in the way they treat, at least, young people. But that’s not the case. We know from seeing the documents that Meta knew how its algorithms were leading to self-harm among teenage girls. And he didn’t do anything.
Australia is starting an experiment. We will have a relatively rich country in which it will be possible to reach 16 without having lived on the internet. We will have public health figures: mental health, self-esteem, suicides. We will have school data. There will be studies carried out by sociologists and anthropologists. In two or three years, we will be able to compare and understand concretely what happens when adolescents live with and without social networks. We will learn a lot.
About The Author
