36 Months

We should interrogate the 'this can't be enforced' objection before we believe it. The idea that just because it’s hard, we should do nothing, does nothing for the world in which we live. No change, anywhere, at any point in history, would have occurred if this is what people said to themselves in order to justify inaction. The Australian government has already said that the onus will be on social media platforms to enforce an effective age gate. Parents won’t be responsible, teenagers won’t be responsible and the government won’t be responsible. The creators of the product will be responsible for making sure those who shouldn’t have access, don’t. “What’s more challenging, figuring out if someone is younger than 16, or building a global real-time communication network that stores a near-infinite amount of text, video, and audio retrievable by billions of simultaneous users in milliseconds with 24/7 uptime? The social media giants know where you are, what you’re doing, how you’re feeling, and if you’re experiencing suicidal ideation … but they can’t figure out your age. You can’t make this shit up.” - Professor Scott Galloway, NYU. The platforms could: # Use AI to estimate when a user is likely underage based on their online behaviours, and seek age verification from at-risk people. # Use the facial recognition capabilities already built into a device to scan a users face on account sign up and if they look underage, ask for ID, just like the bloke at the liquor store would. # Collect sufficient information to confirm a user’s age, then wipe the information from their servers. ID checks for age verification are a safety measure, not a privacy intrusion. Borrowing Galloway's words again, the reason the platforms haven’t implemented these safety measures yet is because “it will reduce their profits, which will suppress their stock prices, and the job of a public company CEO is to increase the stock price. Period, full stop, end of strategic plan. So long as the negative impact to the stock price caused by the bad PR of teen suicide and depression is less than the positive impact of the incremental ad revenue obtained through unrestricted algorithmic manipulation of those teens, the rational, shareholder-driven thing to do is fight age-verification requirements.” Of course they are going to socialise anti-privacy rhetoric to scare us into keeping the status quo. The irony is, they are the ones responsible for keeping our data private. That responsibility doesn’t increase or diminish with changes to the minimum age. They are wealthy enough to be held to a higher standard on this. Don’t let social media duck and weave their social responsibility. 36 Months

Thanks Deloitte for taking the time to actually ask the kids what they think. These findings mirror what we've heard and seen as we've visited schools. Gen-Z breathes a sigh of relief when we take away the fear of missing out and the moment by moment indication of whether or not they belong in their peer group. https://lnkd.in/gAC5_xKj 36 Months

A quick 5mins with Narelda Jacobs on Network Ten today, discussing the new social media legislation introduced by Michelle Rowland MP. She nailed it when she said, "it is the right thing to do, for the right reasons, at the right time. Until a child turns 16, the current social media environment is not age appropriate for them." 36 Months

Since the PM’s social media announcement, the voice of those ‘against the ban’ has risen in volume. Their message is that the ban alone is not a silver bullet to solve the safety of young people online. I agree with this sentiment. However I also believe we don’t need to oppose delaying social media access in order to say yes to better education. This vs that, or legislation vs education, is a false dichotomy. The right answer is yes to both. There is a direct correlation between the rise in anxiety, depression, eating disorders, self-harm and suicide amongst teenagers and the introduction of social media into their world. The situation is so bad that to keep the status quo while we work on more nuanced remedies is negligent. The best solution requires policy change AND behaviour change. One is not a substitute for the other. I’d also love to lose the word ‘ban’ if we can. We don’t call it an ‘alcohol ban’ for teenagers, or a ban on smoking or driving before you get your license. Society has simply determined that there needs to be a level of developmental maturity in order to comprehend the risks and engage in these activities safely. Language matters. We’re giving something up in order to gain something better. We’re losing social media in order to find social connection. It's only 36 Months, but it could change a lifetime.

Michelle Rowland MP we’re deeply concerned about possible exemptions for platforms like Snapchat if they define themselves as a messaging platform instead of a social media service. Exemptions and loopholes are a slippery slope, with nothing stopping other platforms from adjusting features and definitions to keep kids as users before they have the maturity to navigate these platforms safely. We need to protect the kids, not the platforms. There must be strong legislation that doesn’t leave wriggle room for these companies to duck and weave their social responsibility by changing the words they use to define themselves. Regardless of what Snapchat calls itself, it has: - Gamified online interaction that makes using the service highly addictive - Algorithms that target vulnerabilities and feed unhealthy obsessions? - The ability for users to share and receive commentary from a social network, allowing online bullying to grow in the shadows of the service. Of all the popular platforms young people are currently using, Snapchat is the one parents are most worried about. #socialmedia #makeit16 #passitbychristmas / 36 Months