Children need to be protected from social media harm but a digital ID is not the way

Children need to be protected from social media harm but a digital ID is not the way

The social media-induced mental health crisis affecting children requires community action to protect them from harm.

As a result, Family First supports a ban on social media for under 16s.

However, Family First is opposed to a digital ID or mechanisms where personal data is required to be handed over to tech companies or government.

There are legitimate doubts about how protection of children can be delivered, and the rush to get legislation through this week could do more harm than good.

Family First agrees with renowned US sociologist Jonathan Haidt, who in his 2024 book The Anxious Generation, details how a “great rewiring of childhood is causing an epidemic of mental illness”.

Haidt, who makes the case for collective action to get children off social media, also acknowledges that digital IDs are not the way to achieve this.

He writes on page 238: “There is not, at present, any perfect method of implementing a universal age check…that is perfectly reliable and raises no privacy or civil liberties objections”.

He advocates requiring device manufacturers to provide a way for parents to mark their child’s phones, tablets and laptop as devices belonging to a minor.

He also says blockchain tokens which carry no personal information could be explored.

The Online Safety Amendment (Social Media Minimum Age) Bill 2024 is expected to be voted on this week and has support from the Coalition, despite unrest about it becoming a Trojan Horse for digital ID.

It seems the bill leaves the work of developing a mechanism to verify age up to the tech companies.

The bill’s explanatory memorandum it creates “an obligation on providers of an age-restricted social media platform to take reasonable steps to prevent age-restricted users from having an account with the platform”.

Family First also supports Haidt’s suggestion of a school hour ban on phones, something which is not part of the online safety bill.

More time is needed to work out how to protect children without censoring the internet.

The bill should not be rushed through this week.