The public health argument
The teachers are categorical: the real problem is not the predators that roam the Internet, but the damage caused by the stimuli of social networks on the brains of children, who have become unable to concentrate. Teenage depression jumped. We prohibit the sale of alcohol to minors, we can prohibit access to social networks to under 16 years. It is not for nothing that an Instagram official must be heard by the United States Senate to account for the negative impact of the social network on the health of adolescents.
The pragmatic argument
Tech giants are paying armies of developers and neuroscientists to design the most sophisticated devices to hold unwilling users’ attention, and we wish a little 12-year-old brain could hold out? Asking teenagers to have a reasonable consumption of an addictive product is totally unrealistic, and we have no choice but to block access to it.
The ideological argument
CSP + are beginning to understand the dangers of screens. Teens without smartphones, like families without television at the end of the last century, are found in the well-to-do classes. Screen time is already higher in disadvantaged areas. If we do nothing, kids who are already disadvantaged will be even more disadvantaged, and educational inequalities will widen. It is a question of social justice.
The public health counter-argument
And why should those under 16 be protected as a priority? Have you seen the time old people spend on Facebook? Social networks and their procession of “fake news” do damage to democracy, and until proven guilty, those under 16 do not vote. Let’s start by encouraging parents to curb their use of social networks and their smartphones!
The pragmatic counter-argument
And how are we going to shut them down, social networks? With a big piece of tape? WhatsApp is already limited to under 16s, Instagram and TikTok to under 13s, and neither social media, parents, nor schools take that into account. We already cannot ban their access to physical products, such as cannabis, how do you prevent them from accessing virtual products?
The ideological counter-argument
Gaspard Koenig is the man of the Free Generation think tank, “Who fights for freedoms. All freedoms » ? Are we still liberal if we stop being so as soon as our children have access to freedoms that bother us? And then there is more effective than prohibiting: putting pressure on companies. Facebook has already given up on its Instagram project for those under 13.