Experiments produce results
Therefore, if someone has conducted an experiment it seems useful to await the results before deciding to go do that thing.
Keir Starmer is to ban under-16s from major social media apps such as TikTok, Instagram and X in sweeping restrictions described as “Australia plus”, the Guardian understands.
In a major policy shift far tougher than previously briefed, the prime minister will announce that teenagers will be banned from all the main social platforms.
So Australia did this a few months back. That’s the experiment. Some say that this will make children much safer and so on. Others that it will make children less safe as they’ll flock to unregulated alternatives - good luck getting 4Chan to agree to any rules and good luck to banning access in a world of VPNs and so on. We tend to the second view, ourselves, but agree that the actual outcome is as yet uknown and a matter for debate.
There will also be restrictions for older teenagers up to the age of 18 that prevent “scrolling” late at night.
As has been observed the idea seems to be that people are old enough to vote and yet not old enough to watch Instagram after 10.30 pm. We do tend to think that’s not a supportable position.
But:
Thousands of teenagers in Australia are reported to have found ways of circumventing existing age limits on social media.
The experiment is being conducted. We’d really - very firmly - suggest that we should await the results of that experiment. If it’s some few sneaking through the back doors then, well, that’s one answer. If it’s - as we strongly suspect - a majority of the age group then that’s another and different answer.
Our point here is not, not really, about social media and teenagers. It’s about the base idea of how a place gets run. We are, as many will have noted, strongly in favour of the market approach. Try everything, do more of what works and less of what does not. So, if someone else conducts the experiment for us we should await the results to find out what works - to do more of it - and what does not - to do less.
As opposed to the way this is working at the moment which seems to be “Australia has done this, so should we” without that consideration of, well, yes, but what has been the effect of Australia doing this? Shouldn’t we find out, first?
You know, as with their restrictions on smoking, puntive taxes on cigarettes, banning of nicotine containing vaping leading to 80% (by some claims) of tobacco sales being illegal and untaxed and the resultant gang warfare over the turf and moneyflow?
Tim Worstall