The Australian Parliament just enacted countrywide restrictions on the use of “social media” by the country’s youth. Essentially, as I understand it, this would prohibit social media companies from providing accounts to children under 16. The rationale expressed includes harm to children stemming from addiction and choices between the mental stresses, bullying, body shaming and social isolation.

According to the Associated Press: “The harms to children from social media have been well documented in the two decades since Facebook’s launch ushered in a new era in how the world communicates. Kids who spend more time on social media, especially as tweens or young teenagers, are more likely to experience depression and anxiety, according to multiple studies — though it is not yet clear if there is a causal relationship.”

Further, the Associated Press reported: “What’s more, many are exposed to content that is not appropriate for their age, including pornography and violence, as well as social pressures about body image and makeup. They also face bullying, sexual harassment and unwanted advances from their peers as well as adult strangers. Because their brains are not fully developed, teenagers, especially younger ones the law is focused on, are also more affected by social comparisons than adults, so even happy posts from friends can send them into a negative spiral.”

Paul Taske, associate director of litigation at the tech lobbying group NetChoice, says he considers the ban “one of the most extreme violations of free speech on the world stage today” even as he expressed relief that the First Amendment prevents such law in the United States.

“These restrictions would create a massive cultural shift,” Taske said. “Not only is the Australian government preventing young people from engaging with issues they’re passionate about, but they’re also doing so even if their parents are ok with them using digital services,” he said. “Parents know their children and their needs the best, and they should be making these decisions for their families — not big government. That kind of forcible control over families inevitably will have downstream cultural impacts.”

The details of Australia’s ban are currently being worked out for the new law which would take effect in a year or so. “Social media” is not a defined term. An Australian minister has identified a number of companies including Meta Platform’s Facebook and Instagram, Snapchat, Tik Tok, X and YouTube that would be off-limits to youngsters.

Principal Responsibility for implementation of and compliance with the ban is placed squarely on the shoulders of the social media providers–not the children or their parents. They are charged with adopting effective measures to ensure that no one under 16 will have accounts or otherwise be able to use their platform. Failure to do so will expose the companies to very substantial fines of up to $50 million or so.

Other countries and jurisdictions have enacted or are considering similar measures.

As I come from the rotary dial era (some of you may know what I am referring to by “rotary dial”), and have not lived with teenagers for many years, I have little familiarity with social media. So I thought that I would dig a bit.

The first thing that I learned was that California has recently enacted a law intended to curb the use of social media by our youth. Other states are considering imposing controls on use of social media by youth.

The California law is called the “Protecting Our Kids from Social Media Addiction Act”.

The bill would take effect on January 1, 2027. It makes unlawful for the provider of an “addictive” internet-based service or application to provide an addictive feed to a user, unless the operator does not have actual knowledge that the user is a minor; has reasonably determined that the user is not a minor; or has obtained verifiable parental consent to provide an addictive feed to the user who is a minor.

“Addictive feed” is defined as “an internet website, online service, online application, or mobile application, in which multiple pieces of media generated or shared by users are recommended, selected, or prioritized for display to a user based on information provided by the user, or otherwise associated with the user or the user’s device” with certain exceptions.

A significant difference between this legislation and the Australian approach, for better or worse, is that the California law allows exceptions based on parental consent while the Australian approach does not allow for parents to make decisions. It occurred to me that some parents might appreciate taking enforcement of limits on social media use out of their hands.

Apart from this rudimentary legal research, I thought that I would ask some parents and community parents about whether they would favor meaningful restrictions on social media by youngsters.

The first person I asked was my daughter, Natalie Anne Cookson, who is the mother of my 12 year old grandson, Elliott, and 10 year old granddaughter, Emma. Her answer: “100%!!”

Former Board of Education member Isabel Hacker told me: “Students lack adequate control required to monitor moderate or limited use of social media. In many instances for youth, social media leads to social withdrawal and poor academic achievement and other issues. AUSTRALIA is on the right path for recognizing that the well being of their young is a priority.”

Gaby Alexander said: “I think Australia has the right idea. There is just so much data on the harmful effects social media has on kids and teens. It is very hard for a parent to keep your kid off of social (as I do) when almost all of the kids at school are on it - it makes your kid out of the loop on a daily basis. And causes innumerable arguments about the issue. Which is enough to keep most parents from prohibiting it. Making it illegal protects the kids across the board.”

From recently re-elected Board of Education President Mandy Stern: “I believe any type of addiction is, of course, detrimental to any user, young or old. I understand that many platforms intentionally embed algorithms that hook young people in, so that they KEEP watching. (TikTok for one, will analyze what seems to interest the user and KEEP SERVING and feeding them with similar content). This is arguably evil to do to young people.

“Any screen activity that is done in a silo; in excessive isolation [is troublesome]. Some teen boys or pre-teen boys commonly spend 6 or more hours per day on certain fast-paced games or “quest” online...It’s already bad if they are doing this simultaneously with a known friend from school. BUT it is even more depressing and alienating if they play solo, without any ‘sharing’ or strategizing with another soul for hours on end. If they do not have exposure to in-person socializing, especially with the opposite sex, many fall victim to online pornography addiction. And then they really never meet or date successfully.”

Former popular three-time Beverly Hills Mayor Tom Levyn raised a number of questions: “What about online libraries? They provide a service used by children.”

“The cost of the study may bankrupt some of the providers.”

“Is a child defined? What about CNN? What about ABC, NBC, etc when they provide election results, stories about climate change, etc?

“What about every advertiser online that provides a product (Fisher Price for kids, Amazon?) To repeat: If the independent advice of commissions is not wanted, let’s just disband all of them.

“Seems like an idea that appears to have merit to some, but is completely unenforceable and very costly.”

“Most important: what is the desired goal of the legislation? Is it mental health? Sociability? Nicer to parents?”

Ronit Stone had some reservations: “Although in theory I support the concept of limiting screen time---I don’t know how banning social media can be enforced if kids have cell phones. Not sure that it is “fair” or that penalties be levied only on the tech companies. I think parents have a responsibility to restrict the use of cell phones and screen time by their children. It is not just social media--it is video games and the addiction to the internet and incessant cell phone usage.

“Many tech execs themselves limit phone use and screen time for their own children up to age 14--that says a lot! If people whose livelihood depends on screen time don’t let their own kids use it....they must know something about its deleterious effects.”

Ellie Yadegar, the mother of two children in our schools, told me: “I don’t know any parent who thinks that social media has had a positive impact on their kids. It has actually destroyed them. But having said that, even if it were banned, what needs to be done is to have the culture and mentality of the parent population changed.

Not everyone felt that what they referred to as a “nanny state” measure thought that such legislation was a good idea. Former three-term Beverly Hills City Treasurer Eliot Finkel expressed a strong view that restrictions of this type should be left entirely to the discretion of parents.

Personally, I am inclined to think that imposing restrictions on the use of social media by youngsters and placing responsibility for enforcement on the social media providers AND parents is a good idea.

What do you think?

You can respond to me about this issue, or any other for that matter, via email to petero@ostroff.la.

***

In last week’s column entitled “Beverly Hills Commissions – To Be or Not to Be”, I wrote about the fact that City Council and staff have little interest in the involvement of or obtaining independent advice from Commissions. Two recent events provide further evidence supporting this observation:

1) On Sunday November 24, all five members of the City Council had their pictures taken while attending the Vahagn Setian Foundation Tree Planting Ceremony at La Cienega Park; a member of the Recreation and Parks Commission told me that the Commission was not invited to or even informed of this event;

2) In mid-November, the Public Works Department sent out an RFP for “Microtransit [typo in original] Turnkey Services”, an on demand service for the City. As far as I can tell, the Traffic & Parking Commission was not consulted. [This RFP will be the subject of a future column.]

To repeat: If the independent advice of commissions is not wanted, let’s just disband all of them.