Lots of accolades, little details in Kinew’s proposed social media ban

Premier Wab Kinew made national news headlines on the weekend when he promised to institute a ban on social media use by youth. Although Ottawa and several other provinces have promised similar efforts, the industrious Manitoba premier beat them to the punch and the accolades.

Kinew was no doubt aware that separating children from social media has become an international obsession. Seizing upon this issue, and holding court with a hotel ballroom full of 900 loyal New Democratic supporters, he announced his intention to save Manitoba children from the social and psychological ravages of social media.

Unfortunately, Kinew does not yet know, or is not prepared to say, at what age his ban would take effect, how it would be enforced or which platforms would be affected. But why sweat the details?

This pledge is a winner with voters.

A month before Kinew’s announcement, an Angus Reid Institute survey found that 74 per cent of Canadians support a ban on social media use by youth under the age of 16. This kind of result tells us that political leaders who do a good job of measuring public opinion are going to weigh in on social media bans.

The big challenge for Kinew is how to follow through.

Despite the existence of social media bans in jurisdictions around the world, nobody has perfected the methodology of verifying the age of a user to restrict access to certain kinds of content.

In describing his intentions, Kinew cited Australia, the first country to legally restrict young people from accessing social media. The example Manitoba’s premier is using, however, is hardly encouraging for those who would like to set up a firewall between their children and social media.

Various reports and surveys suggest that despite the ban, six in 10 Australian teenagers continue to access social media. News reports have contained examples of workarounds, including virtual private networks and a variety of techniques to foil face-recognition software.

Australia’s struggles have prompted other jurisdictions to look for a better age-verification mouse trap.

This year, the European Union hopes to widely deploy a Digital Identify App that users and sites offering restricted content can use to meet commission regulations on age verification. Even though the EU’s app is a step forward, it’s not being universally celebrated because online security experts believe it is ripe for hackers.

Add up the collective global experience, and there is a very real chance Kinew’s trailblazing pledge may be just promise with no real pathway to enforcement.

However, before we lament the insurmountable challenges of age verification, we might ask whether a ban can actually accomplish what it is set out to: a reduction in social-media related bullying and improved youth mental health.

Right now, there is no jurisdiction anywhere in the world that has had a ban in place long enough to come to conclusions about efficacy. As the number of bans increases, and methodology on age verification becomes more refined, we will get some idea of whether keeping younger kids off Tiktok has any meaningful impact on social and psychological well-being.

Some of the anecdotal evidence from Australia is promising, notwithstanding the problems with age verification.

A YouGov survey in March found six in 10 Australians believe the ban has been successful in reducing the amount of cyberbullying while 43 per cent said they felt their children were having more in-person social interactions, 38 per cent said the children were “more present and engaged” and 38 per cent reported improved parent-child relationships.

This may be stating the obvious, but when a vast majority of parents wanted a social media ban, it’s not surprising that some are seeing the results they hoped for. That cynicism is warranted when you consider many mental-health practitioners and researchers believe a ban, on its own, is unlikely to have much impact.

In an expert commentary published by Science Media Centre, the non-profit determined there isn’t enough experience with social media bans to conclusively determine its impact, and that existing research suggested that social media does not, in and of itself, erode mental health.

Mental health, the experts argue, is determined by a range of factors including the relative strength of family dynamics, family predisposition of mental illness, and other external factors. Screen time, whether it’s to engage in social media or otherwise, does not have a strong connection to behaviour change, the experts aid.

“There is broad scientific agreement that we need to do more to keep children safe online and to ensure that the digital platforms they use are designed to support their well-being and development,” said Prof. Amy Orben, program leader at the MRC Cognition and Brain Sciences Unit at the University of Cambridge. “What we currently lack is strong scientific evidence on whether banning social media for certain ages is an effective way of achieving this.”

Where does that leave Kinew’s pledge?

For the moment, there are real concerns his proposed social media ban will not do what he hopes it will do.

On the other hand, it’s a winner in the court of public opinion.

dan.lett@freepress.mb.ca