Archbishop Philip Freier
24 September 2024
I am pleased that plans are emerging to set an age limit for children opening social media accounts. It is clear that interactive screen time has displaced many of the human social interactions that are essential for the social and psychological development of young people. Jonathan Haidt and his book The Anxious Generation is a frequent reference point in press coverage of this question. Haidt’s proposition is clear. Overcautious parenting and the development of highly addictive social media apps on smartphones are responsible for the rise of anxiety along with mental health issues that young people are experiencing.
Haidt argues that at least four reforms are necessary to manage the present situation. Some can only be achieved by corporate action at the school and societal level as they are beyond the ability of parents and their children to control. His first principle is no smartphones before high school (in American terms this is about the age of 14). Before that children should have only basic phones with limited apps and without internet browser. Secondly, there should be no social media access before the age of 16. As Haidt says, “Let kids get through the most vulnerable period of brain development before connecting them to a firehose of social comparison and algorithmically chosen influencers”. Next, he makes the case for phone-free schools and finally for “far more unsupervised play and childhood independence”.
Read more: Some Christians believe technology can ‘fix’ us. Scripture differs
Parenting that is more fearful and thus restrictive on children’s independence seems to be a fact across most societies like ours. Urban environments with busy roads don’t help. Independent play is more constrained in institutional settings such as schools, as administrators work to mitigate their risks of legal liability. Smart devices that keep children occupied and at home seem a good response to these concerns. The only trouble is that the impact of these devices on the crucial period of adolescent brain development is deleterious.
I hope that the challenge we face is one that can get bipartisan political support. I know that this is increasingly rare but what is at stake is so important and beyond the control of most families just by themselves. Haidt’s book, which brings together a wide range of research, is a good place to start. I don’t doubt that we have comparable scholars and research in Australia if our politicians need local authorities to help them reach a consensus. I don’t underestimate the task of attempting this at the level of state or federal legislation. The power of the big companies behind the technology, especially the software, is enormous. They operate internationally with significant freedom from regulation. They are experts at “influencing” and will no doubt apply those skills and abilities to counter legislative responses.
I encourage you to inform yourself of the issues at stake and when you have, ask your local elected politicians if they have informed themselves about them. How will they work at their level of government to put some limits on this technology for the sake of the young people in our society? Consider your personal use of smartphones in your family situation, is your example one that commends itself to your children or grandchildren?
For more faith news, follow The Melbourne Anglican on Facebook, Instagram, or subscribe to our weekly emails.
