Should children be banned from social media?

This BBC Podcast is supported by ads outside the UK. Enligt Svensk Kvalitetsindex. Så vi vill bara tacka alla våra vimlare där ute. Hallo, hallo. Får jag be dig om legitimation, tack? Ja. Har du en legitimation? Ja, du vet inte. Ett leck jag kan försöka på. Okej, har du ett leck, tack? När det kommer till ålderskontroller. Och det är faktiskt helt. Till alkohol må folk hälsan bättre. Ålaget annorlunda av en anledning.

Good evening. History may well see the arrival of social media on the internet as one of the swiftest and most significant changes in human behavior ever. If so, today might go down as the moment we woke up to it. Australia's ban, the world's first on under sixteens having accounts on ten of the major platforms, has just come into force.

It followed a government report that said seven out of ten youngsters had been exposed to harmful material online pornography, extreme violence, misogyny, suicide suggestions. A wider argument blames the platforms for anxiety, depression, for rewiring young brains and damaging their intellectual and social lives. Critics say it won't work. Three quarters of these youngsters say they'll still use the platforms one way or another, that a blanket ban fails to distinguish between benefits and harms.

And prohibition will lead to social isolation and recourse to darker corners of the internet. And yet the world is watching. The European Commission, Denmark, Norway, France, Spain are thinking of similar measures.

Should we be following suit in the Children and social media. Our moral maze tonight. The panel, Mona Siddiqui, Professor of Religion and Society at King's College London, Anne McElvoy, executive editor of the news and commentary site Politico, the theologian and philosopher Carmody Gray, Uh and the priest and polemicist Giles Fraser. Carmedy, um where do you stand on social media?

The tech giants are babysitting your kids and they're not charging you because they're selling your kids to the highest bidder and making a killing. So not in favour. So I have a slightly different view. I think th that the idea of bans are always rather suspect. Absolute bans are very hard to enforce. They tend to underweight possible advantages. They're not terribly good at at looking a a at the subtleties.

o of the case. So I I tend to think of them as a bit like a very large sledgehammer to crack a knot, even if the knot i is is a really difficult one and we should explore tonight what the alternatives might be. Sorry Michael, what's the question? I just I just completely lost it. I mean there's a teddy bear uh on social media here doing keepy up, he's absolutely brilliant, you have to watch it. And uh sorry, my attention to what it what is what's the question again? That's the problem.

That is the problem. The problem with social media is it robs you of your attention and makes you stupid. But it didn't rob the rest of us of our attention. So I don't think social media is just entertainment. For the for many young people, it's modern public square where they find friends, they learn to communicate. ac yn ymwneud ymwneud ymwneud ymwneud ymwneud ymwneud ymwneud ymwneud ymwneud hyn

Isn't protection, it's exclusion. Panel, thanks very much indeed. Our first witness is Jennifer Powers, who's founder and director of the Unplugged Coalition, which campaigns for a smartphone free childhood. Um Jennifer, can you sum up for us in one sentence uh what you think why you think we should be doing what Australia has just done? Hello. I think we should be doing what Australia is doing and go far beyond that. There's no uh single answer to solve.

the challenges and risks that children face from this digital world. So I would look beyond a ban on ten social media platforms to curfew, to uh regulation of the devices themselves. Guidance around screen use in early years and creating smartphone free schools. So I would undertake a range of measures. And I would do so because There is a vast and growing evidence base around the harm done to children from uh social media.

um and addictive technology in general. Um and we don't need more research to be done because I think everyone around this table and listening can see the evidence with their own eyes. And so I very much welcome this move by Australia and I hope that Britain will bring it in quickly.

So you've just said we don't need any more research, so you've already made up your mind, which suggests that if there were evidence against your proposition you wouldn't be very inclined to to hear it. I. There are sometimes very good uses of social media. It's good for children to connect. It's another way of

Connecting God I wish I had when I was growing up. I had quite a sort of isolated upbringing. I think I'd have really enjoyed it. What's wrong then with my position that I deserve a ban? Sorry. Well. And I I think that uh in general, uh when children uh young people and early twenty somethings are asked They overwhelmingly say they would have preferred to grow up. in a world without social media and smartphones. So you in that case would have been the exception. And I think that's a good thing.

There is a growing base of evidence which in my mind is sufficient for us to act. If further evidence were to come to light that showed that a refinement of that ban, uh on on the severity of it, the robustness of it. the age, then that's fine. But there is sufficient evidence

to warrant us to act now. And in fact, I don't know quite how you're measuring sufficient though, because Well it's a p it's a judgment, but I think parents across the country we can agree. Parents across the country, there are more than three hundred and fifty thousand parents in this country who have pledged to delay giving their child a smartphone until they're at least fourteen.

This is a movement that is all taking place all around the world. So my point to you is it's not just academic research, it's also the experience of parents around the world who are concerned about the impact on their kids. I need to just focus in on the ban uh ID with you if I could.

So i i see there's some people who feel very strongly that there should be a ban. In in which way is this a a response to the kind of material which we can I think all agree that there is way har too much harmful uh material that is on social media platforms. start while trying to regulate the material, as difficult as that has proved. Yes, I understand that. So we have to take the world as it is, not as we wish it to be.

We cannot make the online world safe because the world is not safe. And this isn't a special thing that has different rules. It has similar rules to the real world. There is harm. There is even more harm online because that is where the predators go, because that's where the children go.

So yes, that's fine to have this I this this utopian idea to create an online world that is safe for children. The reality is it is not safe. Even with the online safety act coming in, there's still a vast amount of harmful content online. Anytime you bring in a ban, of course. There will be a thirteen or fourteen year old that may well be mature enough to handle the uh the pornography, the violence, the beheadings, the murder, the pro suicide content.

All of that. However, we take a judgment all the time about where to draw the line. Some children will be young, some children th that may be better off when they're older. But whether it's driving a car or consuming alcohol, we take a view about how and where to protect children and I think J just one more one more thing. The moral case for this ban is that if we value life

And if we value if if we really believe in our role to protect and safeguard children, then I think we have a more responsibility who is to take a range of measures, including a ban. So who is the we here and what about the parents? Society. Yes. And parents have an em very important role, as do schools and political leaders.

So what about the parents who don't agree with you? What happens to them in this Well, I'm sure there are parents I'm sure there are parents who who don't agree about restricting alcohol use. um you know, and they give their nine year old or their twelve year old a drink. I mean the whole idea that because a ban is not a perfect solution, we shouldn't do it, I think is a nonsen nonsensical argument. We're quite careful, aren't we, before we do we impose as the state

campaigners who will be well informed, well motivated, like you for reasons why we don't say everyone. I think we have such a huge uh we're quick to ban watermelon vape. And we we we make a big song a dance about about things which have a you know, sure they might be bad for kids, but a fairly negligible impact on health. Yeah, with smartphones and social media we know that that children who with heavy use are twice as likely to be anxious, three times as likely to be clinically depressed.

There's been a ninety three percent increase in self harm since smartphones became ubiquitous. Thirteen to seven year old to seventeen year olds are the loneliest group globally. We know that from the World Horse Health Organization. Um the the the hardcore pornography that our children are consuming and and the huge amount of violence creates a desensitivity to that content. You've got a long charge list there, Mona.

So Professor Powers, you frame the protection of children on social media as a matter of safeguarding their well being. But I suppose if we genuinely believe in the sanctity of children's lives, doesn't that require empowering them with skills to navigate

Life's problems. As you said earlier, we have problems in real life, we have problems in on the online world. We don't protect our children from all the problems in real life. Shouldn't we be making them more responsible? Oh I love that question. Thank you. Um and I and I love the promotion as well. Um l listen, um children Children's brains by definition, children are a vulnerable group and their brains are growing and changing.

it would be irresponsible of us to put them in a situation which in my contention is the online world is where they are thrown in at the deep end and taught. You would not drop your child off at a paedophile's house, but maybe extreme cases. There are a lot of children. All children. Whereas one one young girl said today in Australia she said, This is the only way I can make friends.

So for a lot of children the social the online world is also a sanctuary. It's not just somewhere where they are harmed. Okay, that is true. But every decision we make as parents and as as as a society has trade off. And so yes, there will be one or two children or m very many children. There will be very many children who have enjoyable experiences.

on social media and online. My contention is not that children should not have no access to technology. I think that should be done safely and I think we have to realise that that cannot be done in an unsupervised setting.

So I welcome the ban. I welcome children accessing tech under supervised and semi supervised environments such as school and home. Okay. Can I ask that studies of previous d uh digital restrictions I know that bans often lead to Anonymous platforms and regulated sites are Um migration to less moderated apps. There's a danger of that happening as well. This blanket ban, we don't know what the consequences of this will be.

Yeah, well we know we know the benefits and I guess I I I just feel that we as a society um have a moral obligation to protect the most children.

And the way we do that is through a range of measures. This blanket ban by itself, of course, will not solve the problem. But it's a start and I'd like to see the UK and and and countries all the w all around the world go further. I think one thing we haven't gotten to which is really important is that

PISA scores are are falling around the world. IQs are falling globally. We have um literacy rates for the first time ever stagnating or declining in countries around the world. We are in danger of going into a postliterate world. And, you know, we're getting to a place where Children find it difficult. They're they're having delayed speech and language. They're finding it difficult to socialize. Um they're finding it difficult um to play in groups because they are so isolated on these devices.

So yes, they may find joy, they may find community, but you have to look overall and net net it's a hugely negative on them and their life chances. But the example you give of literacy, et cetera, uh we were discussing earlier. I mean I've been a university lecturer for many years, well before social media was in everybody's hand. Literacy levels were going down, students were failing to read monographs, students came unprepared. So my benchmark for students was

Going down every year. That may well be that may well be accelerated since then. And if you look at all the data in terms of the mental health and well being of children, it goes off a cliff at twenty twelve.

in every country around the world. And there's no alternative piece of the students. There is well I explain that simply not true. Well there is a study by Cambridge University this year, May twenty twenty five, that actually shows that clinical level diagnosis reveals a range of differences. So the correlation between children who are vulnerable and how they react to social media as opposed to children who are not vulnerable who don't know by the closure.

With that I will clean. Yeah, absolutely, because we make decisions all the time. We we we have to say, Okay, what is the age you can join the army? What is the age you can buy alcohol? Yes, there may be a few children under that line that are mature enough, but we as a society have to draw the line somewhere.

And I say for the sake of uh children's welfare um and for future labor market, for the future family formation, for the future cohesion of society, we need to draw a line on social media and we need to take undertake a range of other measures.

Jennifer Powers, thanks thanks very much indeed. Our next witness is Timandra Hagness, the Radio Four presenter, of course, and author of Technology is not the problem. Uh in this particular context, Demandra Do you mean or do you think that it it just simply isn't a problem, that the ban's wrong? Well, I think it's different to say technology is a problem and technology is not the problem. I think one thing we often get wrong in society is to project onto technology.

ymwneud â phobl sy'n ymwneud â phobl sy'n ymwneud â phobl sy'n ymwneud â phobl. And so I I wouldn't say there are no problems associated with social media, but to try and think we can get rid of them by banning social media I think would be a grave mistake. Charles. Uh I'm an I'm an addict of social media. It's made me a worse dad. It's made me worse personally. I can't concentrate as much. I sit at the I sit in my chair and I scroll through endless rubbish.

It rots my brain. Isn't this something we should do something about? Well I'm afraid you're just abdicating your responsibility as an adult, as a parent there, by trying to project your agency onto a device in your hand which you're quite capable of turning off and putting down. Yeah, no, I agree. But I feel I feel it

I feel it's I'm I mean I'm trying to be in confessional mode here. I feel it's done something to me. I think it's done something to me really negative and I really I mean I I struggle to be free of it. And when I think of what it's done to me, I really don't and the the evidence as we've just been hearing

Seems to be very considerable where that's a short form you're just watching one little thing and then one little thing and then one little thing and then one little thing. And it just means that you just need your attention just goes.

The thing is, I mean, if you ask teenagers and young people what effect social media has on them, it's a very mixed picture. It can be negative and positive and often both for the same person. It varies according to the age and often according to the sex of the person. But the thing that I would compare it with is Traffic, transport, road getting getting around. You you don't put a three year old out onto the street and say, There you go, you're gonna have to live in a world with

cars and buses, so you better learn sometime. But conversely we don't lock kids in the house till they're sixteen and then give them a moped and expect them to know how to handle getting around in traffic. It's something that we feel they have to learn to contain and make use of that gradual. I think social media is is is very similar. Social media is the world that we live in now.

Do you think we're kids really, really need social life. Well yeah we can, but but kids really need to socialise with their peers. And the w a big way they do it now is through social media. It's not their fault. that they don't get to leave the house and go and play in the water. Mona says terrifying and she said a min minutes ago and she said something as if this was a really positive thing. She quoted a girl saying, This is the only way I can make friends.

And when she said that, she thought that was a really good thing about social media. I thought that was terrifying. Well it is terrifying, but the the problem is not the social media, the problem is that other things have been cut off.

That kids don't go out. You could say to your kids, No, no, I want you to go out and play with your friends and they would probably say, My friends don't go out and play either. Where is it you expect me to go? So let's read one and see if there's any agreement here. Do you accept

That there is a problem with things like attention, the things like the way in which social media can sort of Transfix you. and you're just like losing your sense of Well, I mean th I do think that the not reading long books predate social media. I do agree that it's a terrible distraction. I also pick my phone up and then half an hour's passed and I haven't really done anything except look at entertaining dog videos. But this is a life skill that we all need to learn and not being distracted.

By social media and getting things done. We're not learning it very well though, are we? It seems to be sort of intuitively right that if you put this ve this is a very powerful tool and it's a very powerful tool about the way in which it changes the way you think and the way your attention works and so forth like that, you wouldn't you wouldn't let have access to this very powerful technology when there are very powerful people trying to

Well no, of course you're not. I mean I just find it irresponsible. But this is very different. Like you know, you're a parent. You don't have to give your kids access to everything in the world. I and I won't because it's exactly you won't. You don't need a government ban.

to say your kids can't have their own smartphone or their social media account. That's up to you as a parent to do that and I hope you do. Yes, yes, yes, but there are all sorts of other things that are banned by the government and rightly so. Yes, they are, but this is not this is not the right thing to ban at this age because kids at i to the idea that kids will suddenly at sixteen get a social media account and be able to handle it.

and be able to know what to do and what they should share online and what they shouldn't share online and how to interact with their friends. I think is fanciful. For a start, it it it won't be enforceable. But also you are depriving them of the chance to learn gradually with adult supervision, maybe alongside you as the parent, when they could be learning how to cope and what to share and what not to share.

I'm feeling a bit of a bottleneck. There are so many things to pick up on. But let's let's let's start with this question of of of when. When do we kids ha this this is an uncontroversial kids have to learn how to use it, right. The question is not whether, the question is when. Now in the case of say weapons.

We don't gradually introduce them to weapons from the age of three. We're like, at the age of sixteen, if you really want to fire a gun, we need to go to a place where you learn how to fire guns. Why is why is it better that they learn this in this gradual way, as opposed to it being like sex, alcohol, hard drugs, weapons, driving, military service and all the other things that we're like they shouldn't start to do that until they're sixteen.

Because I don't think that I don't think you compare social media to guns. I mean this that's a ludicrous media to harmful substances though. As we were just hearing from the previous witness, it is uh causing enormous harms. There's it that strikes me as there is a clear analogy between social media and other harmful substances, right? No, because social media is not simply harmful. Social media has harms and benefits and

How the harms and benefits are mixed up depends very much on the person using it. And research shows this that some research shows that certain groups find it very harmful to their attention or self re self respect, their their feelings about themselves. Others find it immensely helpful. And the thing that young people in particular find it's valuable for is friendship. And maintaining their friendship.

And th the world that we live in is not one where they will not see their friends until they're at school or until they arrange to meet up. The world they live in is the same as the world we live in, where we message our friends in between seeing them uh and we keep our our relationships going like that.

Young people are learning how to relate to each other. Now, you know, I grew up in the pre spartphone era. I'd love it if they were all just off playing in the woods and then meeting up in the park when they got to teenage years. But that is not the world we live in. But but but we have a choice. How we construct the world we live in. We we don't need to be fatalists about this. I mean, we are the ones creating the social architecture in which our kids grow up. And of course

if they have a smartphone at home, they won't play outdoors. Th they may be pl not playing outdoors for other reasons. But this is part of a kind of system in which our children are inducted into the adult world and we have to take responsibility for that system because they can't.

Yes, but you're not gonna they're not gonna suddenly start playing out of doors if you take their social media. No, they aren't. But you also have to do things like give them parks and restore their like limbs into normal movement. Because they all spend their lives sitting on the sofa. I mean absolutely one part of a wider

But there's a social approach to getting our kids outside. But there's a lot of evidence that kids that spend more time on social media interact with their friends are also the kids that spend more time with their friends in real life. the issue of play and when uh the when kids learn and so on. But can we briefly talk about education? So it seems to me that I'm a former univ well, uh present university lecturer and

The evidence to me is extremely clear that social media use is damaging their ability to learn. Do you agree with that? I think it's less clear-cut because I think that the the development of social media goes alongside a lot of other detrimental developments. Uh I personally think if if there was a I mean what could possibly be competing with this as a influence in producing literature. Yes, but why are they not expected? The expectation by the kind of environment in which

certain things become realistic or not. No, the fact is expectations are formed by the teachers. Yes, and why do the t I am a teacher and I can tell you that I go into my courses or I used to go into my courses with very you know, guys, here's Kant, let's read it. And then over a course of weeks and months and years

Eventually, you're utterly cowed by the undeniable fact that their smartphone is more attractive than Kant. And so you change your expectations. The expectations don't pre exist the architecture in which you're doing the teaching, do they? So but that it's a university. Are you saying that you should ban smartphones for everybody under twenty-five?

But that's up to teachers in schools. If teachers in schools want to say no smartphones in the classroom They're perfectly capable of doing that. The kids are in schools by the minority of the twenty four hour cycle.

But that's the time when phone use doesn't happen in school. But that's the time when you're wanting them to learn. It's not the only time when their brains are being formed. Their brains are being formed in the twenty four hour cycle where they're totally plugged into their devices all the time.

A smartphone ban in schools is a great idea, but it's not enough to protect their attention, is it? They're not going to stop using computers to communicate with each other if you ban them from social media sites. They are living in places where Everyone expects us to do everything by computer. I can't do anything with businesses or government agencies without interacting with computers. Do do you really think that

Kids are going to suddenly magically live outdoors in the woods and never use a a device to communicate with each other until they're sixteen. Leave that question hanging in the air. Jimandra Hartness. Thank you. Thank you very much indeed. Thank you. Hallå, hallå. Får jag be dig om legitimation? Tack. Har du en legitimation? Jag vet inte att jag kan försöka på. Okej, har du ett leck? Tack. När det kommer till ålderskontroller.

Gång till alkohol malt hälsan bättre. Systembolaget är annorlunda av en anledning. Snart hamnar rikerkatalogen. Skolefrånriker.

um author of Stand Out of Our Light, Freedom and Resistance in the Attention Economy. He's on the line from Copenhagen now. Um Uh James Williams, in a nutshell, we'll we'll unpack it, don't worry. What what do you think has changed since the advent of the smartphone and social media and what is the harm real and potential that it's led to?

So I I think that I approach this all from the question of attention. Um and I to me attention is the fundamental thing in human life. You know, we can't do anything that matters, I think, unless we can give attention to the the stuff that matters. And I think what we've seen in the trajectory of digital technology the last uh you know, twenty five years or so, and is certainly since the smartphone, is the emergence of essentially the largest system of

uh attitudinal and behavioral manipulation in human history of influence of persuasion. Um the main goal of many of these systems is to capture and exploit our attention as much as possible. Uh and the goals that the many of these systems have are not the goals that we have for them. You know, we approach them with a certain usage goal but

The goals that they have for us are always, you know, what's actually on the dashboards uh you know, is like the amount of time we spend, um, you know, n number of users, uh basically how much of our life can it suck up. And so I understand. Uh Mona Sidiki?

So do you use social media yourself? So I I I've advised many projects on this topic and I have still have no clue what is meant by the term social media. Okay, well you define it for me then. I'm for me social media would be anything that helps us be social, but I think that would exclude the majority of these systems. Um especially especially social networks. Um there was a recent

uh FTC case in the US where uh meta admitted that on Instagram only seven percent of the time users spend uh is consuming content from accounts they're connected to. And on Facebook is only seventeen percent. So but d do you use any of these sites? Well I I I use certainly sites on the internet. I use messaging applications, sure. But uh I don't think it the social media is a coherent. And do you feel that um you are addicted or that you are manipulated by these sites?

Well certainly m certainly manipulated on some description of the term. Um I mean I think addicted I I mean I I wouldn't say addictive, but I certainly like anyone I struggle with uh self regulation. I think that's one of the d dominant challenges of the digital era. Yeah. So in a way you're you're framing the attention economy as a battle that we can't win. Is that right?

No, I don't think it's a battle. I think a battle is where there are two sides fighting. I think this is uh more just uh uh human trafficking or exploitation. Okay. But but you see, I I would say that the evidence suggests the opposite, that agency does persist, habits can be changed.

I think I probably have a more optimistic view of human nature that people can decide how and when to use technology, irrespective of it being very attractive and as Giles says he's on it all the time and uh it's changed him. I isn't the real challenge giving individuals tools to equip them to s uh how to use these sites skillfully?

No, I think I don't think it's a question of tools at all. I think it's a question of our environment. I think that, you know, to me the social media ban children from going outside. I mean it's an omission of failure that we we can't we haven't been able to

you know, muster the uh the coherence of of of effort and initiative to to create an environment that is actually aligned with people's interests. Um so I th so I think that, you know You know, we've known for you know, millennia that the environments in which we live shape our behavior in d very deep ways.

We require those environments to be aligned with our our goals and interests. So what is it that you would want to regulate? Is it the persuasive aspect of social media? What is it that you're looking to regulate here? Sure. So I think I mean I think there there are kind of Several layers to it. But I think one is is about the the the techniques of persuasion, you know, things like algorithmic

feeds, auto-scroll, et cetera. But I think the deeper issue is just the fundamentally adversarial nature of all these systems. We allow uh many of these platforms to say that they are doing these great things for our lives and that that's the actual goal. But if you you know look at the actual dashboards uh it it's things that no b person has

as a goal for themselves, how much time they spend you know, on the site and this kind of thing. So I think what I would want to do is actually just require that the system be aligned with Human goals and interests to begin with. And then I think many of the other things kind of flow from that realignment. But a persuasive design, which is inherent in in many of the social media sites, that's not in inherently unethical, is it?

No of course not, no. So in a way, th w what is your main problem with these sites then? If the if it's not inherently unethical, persuasion isn't unethical, then what is the problem that you're facing? Well persuasion is inherently isn't unethical. My my GPS or satinov, I guess as you call it, uh persuades me to take a certain route. But if it

If it took me to a completely different city, that would be unethical. And I think that's that's essentially what's happening here. You know, we trust these systems to be shaping our lives in very deep ways, but they're They're taking us to a completely different destination than they say and that we expect. So

So I think I think th there the deeper failure here is that um we've really just uh been too lax in our expectations of technology. We just expect and assume that we have to have this whole environment that's working against us and You know, that that doesn't have to be the case.

Anne McKilfrey. Uh But people like this. I mean uh people get a lot of pleasure from social media. I sort of feel that tonight we've we've we've heard a kind of dystopian view of something which an awful lot of people who are d not doing it because they're in in in some way in a advanced stage of addiction find useful. It supplements their work.

their life, they share images of their family and their friends. What's I mean are we in danger of just being kind of s fun spoilers around here? We don't like the dopamine hit that people are getting. Well th there's a place for entertainment and for fun and pleasure. I mean, but you know, obviously that can be taken too far as it is in in other domains and

Um you know, one of the things that the digital world has given us or has done that wasn't the case before is it's kind of collapsed many of the boundaries we had in our lives. You know, like your school is a place, your work is a place. you know, uh you sit down and you just watch a show and then you get up and leave. Now it's all on the same playing field, competing for our attention, in our pockets, and the persuasive power behind that is Uh is without any kind of precedent.

It's sort of just a little bit more uh kind of temptation. We're talking about an entire uh an entire infrastructure that's now doing this. like exponentially more to billions of people. So

I I don't think that that I think there's a d a difference of degree has come becomes a difference of kind at a certain point. Kind of like how you know a rainstorm becomes a hurricane at a certain point. Yes, but that's because if on this side of the argument, if you don't mind me saying so, the c catastrophist metaphors do tend to

abound and and it just occurred to me, uh just listening to your conversation and as we've we've gone through that that the small pleasures, for instance, I've travelled a lot as a woman alone all my life, you know, as a for a correspondent and just uh uh uh being in places where being able to sit you can sometimes sit and read a book while you have dinner by yourself, but it was not it wasn't as as kind of a in a way as easy uh or as just easy to manage as just being able to sit there in a

in a bar and you know, read something and I want to read on m on my phone or be on social media. So I think you i would you accept that there are maybe small pleasures and gains that can get lost in this rather sweeping argument, particularly if we start to move towards banning things.

Sure, absolutely. I mean I think any time there's a brute kind of force instrument like a band, you know, it it inevitably uh things get swept up in that that ought not to. And that's why I I would prefer to to focus on the fundamental problem here, um, which is I think this sort of industrial industrialization of uh of of you know the extraction of attention. But I mean just on this point of travel, I mean like

So, you know, i it can help us travel to new places, but then like I think there's a sense in which travel has essentially become impossible now. Um when I travel somewhere now, I'm looking at my phone half the time and you know, I'm in the same cognitive world more or less than I was Uh back in where I like it.

If you if you travelled in days when y y you didn't have that kind of guide in your your hand or couldn't perhaps connect with some people locally you wouldn't know you would not have known were there. I I lived in the old East Germany. I think it would have been greatly improved by social media. In fact it wouldn't have lasted as long. So I suppose I'm just saying that the things that some of the things that you seem to describe as being really bad, just reasonable people with reasonable

differences of experience will say, Come on, this is this is this is just like oh age verification and things are very sensible ideas. Uh tech companies are awful to deal with. Regulation may be a good idea, but why are we getting ourselves into this crazy sort of banning mentality? Well I'm I don't think I have a a banning mentality particularly. Um I mean uh my point is not that sort of one is good or bad. My point is that any kind of technology or extension of our

uh our abilities inevitably kind of suppresses something else. And and I think part of what, you know, uh the the literacy that's needed in this space is is about is is exactly kind of like you're saying, I mean it's it's it's having a nuanced view of

uh what are these systems designed to do and then what you know what do they extend but then what do they kind of suppress as they extend something else. So so I think there is like a kind of and to me this is this is very much a kind of a tensional question. Um

In the same way you give attention to something and you're you know, you don't give attention to something else. So so I to me there's there's a kind of a deeper kind of literacy about technology that i is I think necessary to have the right kinds of conversations. James Williams, thank you very much indeed for joining us this evening.

Uh our last witness is Tony Sampson, who's a reader in digital communications at Essex University and an author of A Sleepwalker's Guide to Social Media. Uh you are, as I understand it, uh against this ban. But does that mean you think that social media are harmless to children? Oh we'd love to just just to say something about that. I'm I'm not an advocate of uh unlimited free speech.

Silicon Valley ideology. Mm-hmm. I'm pro regulation. Um I recognise that there's a lot of parent anxiety, particularly parents rather than anxiety with with with kids actually. And I recognise that there's lots of research saying that there's real life harm going on. I'm thinking of

Jessica Ringrose and Becky Coleman, uh their research absolute key in this. But I think as a group we kinda realise that there's an element of um uh of a moral panic around this. I don't think we do know enough about what's gonna happen. So I do uh

nod to the experiment in Australia and say it's you know interesting. I think it's a bit crude. I think it's crude because it uh you know th there's a an age group there from twelve to sixteen, apparently very different to five year olds. I find it incredible to think that a five year old would be using Social media. Okay. Let me stop you then. Okay. Um uh it's not entirely clear why in view of the

scale of the harms that we've heard about from our first first witness, a ban would be an inappropriate response. Okay. So I'd I'd I'd say two things why a ban wouldn't work. Firstly No, no, no I didn't ask why it wouldn't the issue is not whether it would work, because it's actually about whether or not in principle we want to set this as a social norm for society. There's two issues, right? There's the workability of a band and then there's the kind of

So let's just there is a workability issue and I think we're gonna come onto that later. But let's just fix let let's just say stay on this question of Do we in general want kids younger than sixteen to not be on social media? Well I'd say again, I think when you're talking about kids under sixteen to twelve, I think that no, I think they need to have media literacy.

I think they need to be in an environment where media is regulated up to the hilt, not reliant on spam filters or AI technology to try and get rid of these harms, but they need to be demonstrably removed so they don't encounter so much. Um why not just remove the

Why not remove social media altogether? Well because and this gets round to the thing I'm gonna say that at workability of it is it will drive it more underground. I think people like Andrew Tate will become more of a p a a popular character Because you will become underground and more remote. And there's some really grotesque stuff out there, but we still set a social norm around pornography and around

other kinds of violent content and goodness knows all all sorts of other examples. So why is this Why is this different from from that? Um I would draw a line between uh some of the arguments around diminished attention and some of the moral panics around the effect of this stuff and actually seeing pornography and the effect that would have.

I think there's huge fines coming out uh for a number of pornography companies and we've got to see what the effect of that is. Yeah, th I uh no way would I uh be an advocate for that. But, you know... Pro we already have an element of prohibition in schools already. Schools are bad. But it's clear it's clearly not strong enough, right? Because the the exposure of children is not to social media is not taking mainly place in small hours. I think the regulation needs to be ramped up considerably.

And you know, real serious implications for it. Um but uh but j sorry, just to get to get to the fundamentals here. Why is it from a a prohibition. If if there's if your basic position is it's better if kids are not on social media.

Why not go with it No no no no I didn't say that's not your big No no no no I'm saying if you if you take say age of teenagers, maybe twelve, even probably maybe a bit younger than that, but up to about sixteen, I think there are huge benefits from d being on social media and I think they will go underground. Because they will try and get those benefits.

There's quite a lot of sh uh kids and the Ofcom data released t to today actually, which says that most of them are using things for g uh for well being. They they actually manage their own well being in there. A lot of the anxiety and you get this on the Ofcom data

The kids don't feel quite as anxious. I mean there are obviously horrendous examples of of of uh of of of of harm here. I I I I I take it that the line up of evidence which we heard at the beginning of the programme from Um Jennifer Powers is devastating.

I don't I don't agree actually I I'll I'll draw a line with that because I don't think the evidence itself is is that compelling. Uh I you know, I don't I'm I I wanna separate two things here. Th the the online harm, which I think is appalling and I think there's a lot of evidence that that stuff is on there and I think it's a social media model, business model.

which generates that. I think uh your last guest and his attack on the attention economy is absolutely key with that. But there is no proof that there's a a kind of uh diminishing uh intelligence from this. You know, the the the evolution from so called deep attention to what is now popular called sort of shallow attention or hyper attention. There's no neurocorrelate that actually says that, you know

Here's one brain and uh i after w spending a year on a mobile phone, this is the brain now. Giles. Giles. Um Mr Samson, you sat down here for, I don't know, five minutes or whatever. Now, you've got your phone in front of you. I have. You've I mean I've just been watching. You've touched your phone about thirty, forty times and you've been moving around. Are you okay, I I think it's probably right.

Are are you a bit of an addict as well? Again, if you look at the the data on usage, it's the group between eighteen and twenty four who use it a lot more than uh younger kids. I think it's something like three to six hours. Uh uh kids if it's four to eight I can't remember But as one addict to another. Why my age group my age group uh not not that high actually, but I think I'm part of a generation who are high, you know. Yeah. I mean I just I just recognise some of the

I I just shaping my brain. I no didn't ask you a question about your brain. I know nothing about brains. Well here's the thing. Let's just let's just talk about the harm that we've got here'cause yw'n yw'n yw'n yw'n yw'n yw'n yw'n yw'n yw'n yw'n yw'n yw Um, do you worry about your kids on social media? Yes, of course.

Uh nine eleven and uh also uh one of my close relatives, younger relatives, uh seeing an Andrew Tate video before I even knew what it was actually. And when the when kids are watching this Really ugly stuff. You know, poisonous, Holocaust denial um you know, all this really poisonous stuff. We we we want to protect our kids from that. I I can absolutely seen that and I I said from the outset I can see absolutely why there's anxiety there.

I think the problem is that the re regulation isn't working. And now we've resorted to a banana. No no well I wouldn't agree with that because I I I think I think what what the companies have gone off with, social media companies and completely wrongly, they've been allowed to say things Oh, we're we'll use more moderators, we use AI we will use ways of taking down this content and they haven't.

They haven't. We're agreed on that. There are good examples, sorry, but just to say that where they where they're flagged content and a year later it's still there. I agree. We're agreed with all that. And I'd like to

But w th specifically on the ban. People say it's not workable. You said to comedy it's not workable. You know, it's not people are gonna do work around. They banned th they did they did that age thing for porn, didn't they, online about a year ago. And of course all sorts of people You know, those porn sites they've really dropped. The the people who use them have really dropped. So, you know, the a few people might make

fine workarounds for a few of the kids. But actually it might well make a huge impact. on children who are spending time in this sort of thing. I completely agree with you around porn, but I think the the the examples of a kind of

bullying and uh issues around social media but would be better dealt with with stronger regulation and a better quality of media literacy. I mean I didn't get to mention that but that's why I'm here really. I think you We need to we we've we've spent too long deriding media education as being sort of Mickey Mouse. But but you and a there is a quote directly from students, young kids, who say they don't learn enough about media. When they do learn about media it's old media.

So we n we need a a programme that draws attention to things that James was talking about, about the attention economy. If you tell if you tell a young student that actually th the reason why it's free all this stuff is because they are the product. Yes. It starts to shift the way they think.

You know, th there are ways of of of of of increasing literacy so they become more critical. If you tell them more about the business model, if you tell them that there's a there's an algorithm working there to drive you down a a self harm uh rabbit hole and understand why that's happening to you, you empower people. I get all of this, but doesn't it sort of seed the point ultimately? I do get what you're saying, but ultimately it goes

Like it needs more education'cause we've got it, we're stuck with it. It's just gonna be like that. And it feels like a sort of fatalism when you go that needs more education. Okay, well uh just to finish up, I mean there's a good research uh going on here. I mean I mentioned uh Jessica Ringrose and and Becky Coleman and they have a really good plan of going into schools and developing curriculum with kids co creating, not wagging your finger and judgmental.

and finding about what's going on. Their work is hypercritical about things like rape culture, you know, manosphere, topic toxic environments. So they're not ignoring this stuff, but they realise that when you work with young kids and I I do differentiate here, I'm not talking about five year olds, I'm talking about this about twelve

to um uh uh you know uh uh sixteen. But they they they can add to the the d debate. Right. Tony Sampson thank thanks very much indeed. Well uh panel and uh uh the weight of the argument it struck me seemed to fall on the harmfulness, real or potential of social media. I mean even even Tamandra was pretty robust generally about the um about social media, uh acknowledged it was a terrible distraction, there was evidence and not clear cut and so on.

Where did you think the balance of the argument lay? Well y yes, I thought uh that that was a a good nuance um from a uh a witness who was a bit more on the side that that the that there was there was good and bad in social media than for instance the first witness that I was questioning Jennifer Powers, who clearly really fell to a point of catastrophism. Um

that that that a ban had to to be brought about or she would support any sort of of ban that that she could because she believed the harms to be wanted to go much further than the other. One is that once you've decided what the the The hammer to the nail kind of analogy.

that something is so bad, then that is then you will end up in our maze and we are still on the moral maze, that's where you will go because you but then you are, I think, in a bit of a danger of not being able to distinguish between extreme harms which do exist and in fairness uh to Miss P you know powers out press powers out. Uh they do exist

There is a contradiction there, Michael. When you say that oh sorry you went when it is said Uh this is so dreadful that we must have bans and they must be not only for small children or uh regulating harmful c content and these social media companies are so terrible. Yeah. At the same time

A ban is such a simple solution. Well it isn't because nobody really i able to readily say up to what point. What happens the day when the ban comes off? Is is this person this young person completely then a different Commodity and also frankly, what about people who don't want the ban? I don't think she could really answer that question.

From Jennifer Paz and actually from uh g with the other witnesses as well, I suppose, to a degree. But it was a long charge list, wasn't it? The those kind of direct harms, pornography, violence, misogyny, The broader consequences perhaps anxiety, depression, isolation. Talk about attention spans, talk about falling IQs and so on. It's a long charge list. What worries you most about?

Something the thing that worries me most has been missing completely from our conversation. I think this is this is the real moral issue. This is the moral maze. The real moral issue is this that it's not even about the content. It's not even about mainly about what it is that you get to through this medium. It's actually about the structure of the medium itself. And here I suggest a moral axiom. These is a there's an axiom and I have morality often comes down to axioms.

that in person, real time encounter with other people and with the natural world is always better than me than digital encounter. that there's something m truer and fuller and more human about in your actual body, in the same moment, really encountering something else. And therefore

there is actually a problem with the medium itself and therefore regulation is slightly to one side of the real issue, which is we want our kids to spend time in the real world. What can we do to get them back into reality? And sm banning smartphones isn't the whole solution. Or social media or whatever, but it's part of the solution. That's the background principle, uh uh Mona, but what about the m uh if you like, the the the foreground harm?

uh uh when uh witnesses say things like, y well let's compare this to I don't know, driving a car or uh busy roads or alcohol or sex or whatever, you know, these sort of bans, these sort of age prohibitions uh seem appropriate in those sort of contexts. Why is it different with uh something that many people regard as harmful like social media? Listen, anxiety existed well before TikTok, okay? Misogyny, racism, bullying exists in all workplaces.

And I think that moral growth, emotional growth, even our intellectual growth doesn't e occur by eliminating challenges. Children are far more receptive and resilient. Yes, we have cases of children who are harmed, but a lot of young people are far more resilient. And I think there's something missing in our conversation, which is this issue of trust. and discipline. You know, where do parents come in?

sut rydych chi'n gweithio'ch chi'n gweithio'ch chi'n gweithio'ch chi'n gweithio'ch chi'n gweithio'ch chi'n gweithio'ch chi? But you don't trust your child with a knife, do you? Not a big thing. This isn't a knife though. Social media is not a knife. It's worse than a knife because it doesn't even the harms it causes are not even obvious. So your addiction, Gil Giles, to social media is like you carrying a knife.

No, it's worse. It co it's it's corrosive of me. I think it's cor I think it's deeply existentially corrosive. And you have no moral agency. stop this. I do, I mean I try and push back about it, but it's a ch it's a ch it's a challenge. I think it's a challenge. Because it's so ubiquitous. I mean the penny drop for me on this on its ubiquity is it's not just about social media, it's broader than that.

is that the brilliant book by um Matthew Crawford I think called The World Above Your Head and he describes being an airport and he's in an airport and he just describes the constant way in which the screens and everything is just vying for your attention and you're being harvested. And then he goes, This is when the penny really dropped for me, he goes,

Do you know how you escape from it all? You go into the first class lounge. And if you go into the first class lounge, what you pay for is silence. Silence and that sort of stuff has now become that's become a luxury item. But for the rest of us we're constantly bombarded We are not priority. We're losing time. I think any sorry any mo any philosophy, any moral philosophy that doubts human strength And human perseverance is

More than it supports it cannot protect the money. But we are not agents in a vacuum assignment. Switch off your social media on your phone tomorrow if you want it. Why don't you do it? Moral agency is created by Consistent structure and pattern. poses such a dreadful threat. I would like to say the two of the big threats to the n and did the most harm i in in the history. uh o of mankind have been for instance Lenin's Staten Revolution, um and Hitler's Mein Kampf, etcetera, right?

And there would be a case you could make for those, but the banning case is much weaker. So it what we're trying to get from is y the conviction of people who have a catastrophist view here, some of which

Is has actually reasons for it to should we or should we not try to ban things? And I think that is really where we were struggling tonight. And Mona, when you heard from James Williams Mae'n ymwneud â nhw'n ymwneud â nhw'n ymwneud â nhw'n ymwneud â nhw'n ymwneud â nhw'n ymwneud â nhw Talk about what lies uh behind this the industrialization of capturing and uh monetizing attention on this

huge industrial scale he talked about, and he likened it to human trafficking and exploitation. Didn't that send a small quiver of anxiety down your spine? Well I think it was a very extreme way of defining it. And to be honest, I asked him three or four times if he himself was addicted, does he use social media? And he didn't answer that question. Because he doesn't he his get out was it's not social, it's something else. Listen, I think we're all aware that

Sorry, I shouldn't say this again. We're all aware that um there are harms here. But I think this sense that this is the most dreadful thing that is happening to us. And that the state should intervene and ban and our young children are all going off the rails because of this. I think that is moral panic. I really do. And Giles, where's where a parent in all this, by the way? Here's the state stepping in. Isn't this really the role of parents?

Yeah, well th th the thing is you can actually say to your children you're not allowed to do this, you can't do that but actually you don't have supervision of them all of the time and they're out, so you actually need someone to tackle it more at source. This isn't like banning a book.

This is like banning a whole form of architecture or trying to reshape. Carmody's right. It's a it's a different order of things than a film you don't like or a book you don't like or Mein Kampf that you don't want. It's actually the way in which the whole social architecture and our mental architecture are aligned and we have we have this opportunity. It's still not too Late to stop it. There is still an opportunity we have before this is too late. Do you not see any dangers in your absolutism?

Your position has been absolutist. I think there's all sorts of dangers. I just there's all sorts of dangers. So what would they be? Well, banning things is never a great look. Um that's exactly what you'd like to do then. Yeah, no no, I agree, you've asked me what the dangers are. So how good I said that's a r unfair question. You ask me what the dangers are, I say what the dangers are and you tell me that's a danger. That's not a fair question.

Yes of course to try to get to the heart of what of what you're saying, Giles, it seems to me there's there's genuinely two issues. There's a catastrophism about potential harms due to content. sy'n sy'n sy'n sy'n sy'n sy'n sy'n sy'n But then there's simply a judgment about how do we want to form our young people Two lives. Do we want to form them to mainly live in the real three dimensional in time world where they actually meet people in their own bodies and so on?

Or do we want them to be mainly formed to live in a digital world? They will live in a world with pornography, with alcohol, with sex, with weapons, with wars, with they're looking at all kinds of things. How did parents raise children before social media? Can I just uh uh because we're running out of time, get down to this practical question that was raised by several people during the conversation. Uh uh that there could be unintended consequences.

of these bands, uh this particular ban in Australia. Um uh the pi the kids will get rounded, they'll go to even darker corners of the internet and so on. Doesn't that give you pause for thought, Charles? Uh no th th kids are not look, there's always some that are gonna if y if you are the sort of um a person who can find a way into the darker corners of the internet, they probably do that with or without a social media ban. That's I don't I don't see that the vast majority of people are gonna be

push into that. The truth is, it's a bit like the porn ban, is that most people it'll just be in the end it's just too much hassle and then a lot of it a lot of it will drop off. And I think that's a jolly good thing. I mean I mean Actually, to t to really answer your question, uh I don't think there's much downside to banning it.

I really, really don't. I think the idea that the idea that there are these lonely kids that wouldn't be a certainty that you can project I think you're right, by the way, on the point is to

My learned friend, where do you say? There will be workarounds. That's usually a bad argument. Like if the net amount of abuse of something comes down, I can completely see your point on that, Charles. But you don't know, you don't really know because Everybody is projecting into the future what we've got enough trouble understanding in the present. Round here, what would they be saying, do you think? I genuinely believe I genuinely believe they want help.

to not become, to quote Mona, passive victims of a technology that they don't have the maturity to handle. I believe that's what they want. I believe they look at their phones and they think, I hope that someone can deliver me back into a life that I find actually fulfilling and rewarding.

So it's about teaching, it's about education, it's about literacy, it's about all those things that should be part of a school curriculum. And that is where I'm going to have to put my foot down. That's it for this week. From our panel, Giles Fraser and Mikel Voy, Mona Siddiqui, and Carmody Gray. And from me, until the same time next week. Goodbye.

Hallå, får jag beda om legitimation, tack. Har du en legitimation? Här du ett litet leck jag kan få kika på. Hej, har du ett lägg, tack. Vi vet att vi är rätt petiga när det kommer till ålderskontroller. Tillgång till alkohol mälsan bättre. Systembolaget är annorlunda av en anledning. Kvalitetsindex. Am I swallow not?