PERIN DAVEY: Cutting children off from social media is actually rewarding dangerous wrongdoing

When my daughter was 13, she played in a band. They had a lot of fun and regularly performed at our local club’s open mic night.

She often turned to YouTube for tutorials — learning songs, finding the right chords, practising strumming the guitar, and improving her singing.

I thought this was ideal, given she was developing her skills, becoming a better player and singer, and learning new methods and techniques. And it cost me nothing. The online lessons were on repeat; saved to her YouTube account to use at any time.

That’s no longer an option for kids.

When my other daughter turned 13 — more of a sporty spice type — she joined Facebook so she could follow her netball club. We made her responsible for her hobby which she took seriously and living half an hour out of town it was helpful to be able to check if her tournaments or games had been cancelled or changed before getting in the car.

That’s no longer an option for kids.

Proponents say it is not a problem because you can access some content on some sites in a logged off mode without an account. But does that decrease, rather than increase, governance of what they may or may not see?

If we are talking about child safety, which was the original intent of this legislation, surely it’s safer for children to operate on some platforms like video sharing platforms, or educational sites with parental supervision?

As a regional mother, I have experienced my children accessing tutorials on YouTube that we just can’t get locally or physically. By creating a YouTube account that specifies their age, I can ensure that YouTube can restrict access to inappropriate material.

That can’t happen if they don’t log into an account.

Don’t get me wrong, I had huge reservations about allowing my young children on social media. I had read the media, I watched the news. I understand some terrible things can and do happen online. Lots of lectures were given.

That is why I support the intent of the social media ban. But I have concerns about the implementation, and the unintended missed learning opportunities.

I worry that the ban may inadvertently give big tech a way out. The law says big tech — or the 10 platforms currently on the list (which will “evolve” over time) — must take “reasonable steps” to block under 16s or face a fine of almost $50 million.

However, if a child finds a workaround, or if the “reasonable steps” fail, big tech can just point to their processes and claim they are compliant with the law.

It is also deeply concerning that the Government’s public policy approach appears to normalise the idea that bending or breaking the law is acceptable, especially as the Prime Minister and his Communications Minister continue to use rhetoric that the ban won’t be perfect.

The fact that children are already openly discussing how to bypass the ban demonstrates that the policy is unworkable in practice and risks fostering a culture of defiance rather than one built on digital literacy, responsibility and resilience.

At a time when States, including Victoria, are grappling with a significant crime wave, this generation needs fewer mixed messages about respect for the law, not more.

There is also the issue of children just moving to a new platform, which is already happening, but how well regulated are these new platforms?

As one online petition against the ban currently doing the rounds says, “the ban will not prevent young people from using social media; it will only prevent them from using social media legally, safely and under supervision.”

The Government says the list of banned platforms will consistently evolve but does that mean that regulators will consistently be playing catch-up. Technology moves rapidly but bureaucracy does not.

In all of the hype around the ban I am becoming more confused as to its goal. Is it to prevent bullying? Stop malicious algorithms? Restrict access to adult content? Or as the Prime Minister implied — to get kids outside?

The answer may be all the above but the solution to each is not as simple as a blanket ban.

Perin Davey is a former Nationals senator for NSW