It seems that our youth are again in the cross hairs of both State and Federal governments.
Last week the Victorian Parliament passed laws lowering the age of criminal responsibility to 14 which could mean a life sentence for certain crimes.
Governments must always be seen to be reacting to public concerns, as in the case of Victoria where home invasions and violence by youth have unsettled many.
But surely addressing the root causes should be at the forefront of government policy.
Nor can governments be solely responsible for controlling the behaviour of the young.
When a 12 year old is arrested at 2am for being part of a violent incident surely one can ask where were the parents?
There have been rising concerns from police and crime researchers that social-media posts may be encouraging or “glamorising” certain youth crimes.
For example, bragging about stolen cars or burglaries, which may influence other youths to imitate.
This week the Federal Government will bring in laws that will ban under 16s from access to various social media platforms.
Those supporting the ban argue that social media exposes children to pornography, violence, hate speech and other extreme content which may lead to anxiety, depression, self-harm and body image pressures.
Algorithms may push harmful material to young users and many grooming cases begin on mainstream apps.
It isn’t the first time we have gone through a period where young people and their wellbeing dominated public debate.
The late 1960s -1970s saw unrest about unemployment, anti Vietnam War protests against the background of exploding youth culture, music and counter culture.
The Whitlam’s government explicitly framed many reforms around improving life opportunities for young Australians (free tertiary education, expanded TAFE, welfare access).
Today they struggle to access courses, housing and support for mental health problems.
From the late 1980s youth issues surged with the recession creating high youth unemployment.
Youth policy focus was on economic opportunity, social services, disadvantage, and justice reform.
In the 2000s there was not the same political heat as now but youth mental health became a national agenda item and there were already concerns about digital addiction and cyberbullying.
Australia today is experiencing some of the most confronting youth issues in its history, driven by overlapping crises: the high rate of youth mental health especially post Covid, housing unaffordability, climate anxiety, uncertainty around the future of work, the impact of AI and the alarming wave of youth crimes.
The new Victorian laws around youth crime do not address the underlying reasons but merely offer a knee jerk response to a major social problem.
Many argue that rather than solving youth crime the new draconian approach will create hardened criminals.
The rationale given by the Federal government is that social media poses particular risks to children and young people — mental-health harms, addictive design, vulnerability to harmful content The law doesn’t just attempt to mitigate discrete harms (bullying, explicit content) — it changes access and structure of social media.
Under this law, many social-media platforms e.g. Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, Snapchat, X, Reddit, YouTube, and others are required to take “reasonable steps” to prevent Australians under 16 from having accounts.
The Federal government believes that the laws coming into effect this week will solve all the problems of a complex situation.
This however requires a multi prong approach of parental responsibility government support and above all education as to how to live with the new technology.
Parents should be aware that their personal habits set an example to their children. How often do you see a young mum in a cafe scrolling through her phone and her toddler already absorbed in a device used as a pacifier.
And when children watch parents mindlessly doom-scrolling in a world of their own or responding to work emails during family times, surely this does not set a good example.
My therapist says I need to log off,
but I’m scared of what I’ll miss,
and if I stop scrolling,
will I still exist?
Social Media Is Ruining My Life by Neil Hilborn.
The internet is reshaping the environment in which young people socialize, communicate, and grow up.
And it’s not going away, so would it not be better to prepare our youth for the potential dangers of social media rather than introduce a blanket ban?
There are strong, well-established arguments against Australia’s under-16 social-media ban.
These come from child-development experts, digital-rights advocates, psychologists, educators, legal scholars, and some youth organisations.
To begin with, it may not work — kids will find a way around it.
Countries that tried similar approaches (e.g., parts of the US, UK) found low enforcement success.
Young people already bypass age gates with fake birthdays.
To enforce the law, platforms must verify age.
This means collecting or processing highly sensitive data: Privacy experts warn that this creates a centralised database of children’s identities, which increases hacking risk, puts minors’ personal information into private companies’ hands and normalises surveillance from a young age.
The ban may create an illusion of safety without reducing exposure.
It also risks pushing vulnerable teens offline, removing support networks that keep them safe.
For many young people, especially those experiencing mental-health struggles family conflict, bullying, marginalisation (LGBTQ+ teens, neurodivergent kids, isolated rural youth) social media is often a lifeline.
It’s also a way for children to stay connected to friends and family, especially in a globalised world where geographical barriers are significant.
We are connected now—
our voices rise through wires
and find each other.
Kate Tempest – Hold Your Own
And it’s vital for online learning and access to knowledge.
In today’s world, knowing how to navigate social media is crucial for academic, social, and career success.
Psychologists emphasize that today digital literacy is just as important as traditional literacy.
All the libraries of the world
poured into the glow
of a single screen.
Billy Collins – The Student
Psychologists point out that creative expression can positively affect mental health by providing a healthy outlet for emotions.
Platforms like TikTok, Instagram, or YouTube allow children and teens to express themselves creatively through videos, artwork, and writing.
There’s a genuine positivity about creativity emerging from digital life.
Here we are making art
out of nothing but Wi-Fi and loneliness.
Melissa Lozada-Oliva – I’m Not a Poet, I’m a Person on the Internet
The ban may also create a two-tier system of digital access: disadvantages for teens who rely on online spaces for social or educational interaction, while children in tech-savvy, well-resourced families may easily bypass restrictions.
The harms the law aims to reduce — depression, anxiety, online comparison, cyberbullying, addictive design — don’t disappear by banning access.
It doesn’t address the root problems.
Mental health remains severely underfunded and education in how to safely use social media is lacking.
Essentially: the problem is complex; the solution offered is simplistic.
Critics say the policy is based more on moral panic than on robust evidence. And one could add political expediency
There may also be unintended consequences. Parents may become less engaged with their kids’ digital lives, assuming the law will take care of it.
But platforms cannot police every user accurately.
Civil-liberties groups argue that normal teenager behaviour should not become subject to government enforcement.
It may also worsen online risk if under 16s are pushed off mainstream platforms and may end up on riskier less moderated apps.
Banning social media entirely can isolate kids and may encourage secretive behaviour, which is why many psychologists advocate for supervision, education, and open communication instead.
Controlled, mindful use is typically better for children’s mental health than a complete ban.
Parents should educate children on both the benefits and risks of social media, setting appropriate boundaries based on the child’s age and maturity level.
But they should be alert to certain red flags such as secretive social media use, sleep disruption, avoiding school and other activities which may signal cyberbullying, or online harassment and unhealthy body comparisons
Nor should it be left solely to time strapped parents.
Structural support such as schools, community organisations, mental health services, government supported youth programs all should play a part.
Critical thinking should be back on the school curriculum as well as understanding what is fake news, misinformation and disinformation and how influencers make money.
Psychologists have mixed views on banning children from social media, with most advocating for a balanced approach rather than an outright ban.
Their perspectives often depend on the age of the child, the nature of social media use, and the parent-child relationship.
Social media should of course not replace real-life experiences.
Psychologists stress the importance of promoting hobbies and activities that are not dependent on screens, like sports, creative arts and in-person socializing with friends and family.
Experts and researchers say there is insufficient evidence to claim a direct, causal link between social-media use and youth crime, or between the rise in youth mental-health issues and social media alone.
Our youth is our most precious asset and our future.
They are to be nurtured and should never to be used as pawns for easy political ends.
