Instagram goes after our kids
Parents should treat Instagram for Kids the same way they do alcohol, cigarettes or too much sugar, and not let their kids near it, argues David Court.
Instagram for Kids sounds like a monstrous idea. And it’s not just me who thinks so; attorney-generals from 44 states in the United States have, this week, signed a letter addressed to Facebook’s chief executive Mark Zuckerberg, urging him to abandon his plan to create an Instagram service for kids under the age of 13.
The letter is only four pages long, but it contains some damning appraisals of Facebook’s previous conduct and the effect social media has on children.
It began, ‘‘Use of social media can be detrimental to the health and wellbeing of children, who are not equipped to navigate the challenges of having a social media account.’’
It continues ‘‘Facebook has historically failed to protect the welfare of children on its platforms’’, referring to the 2017 release of Messenger for Kids, where kids were allowed to join group chats with strangers without their parents’ permission.
It succinctly finishes with ‘‘[it] appears that Facebook is not responding to a need, but instead creating one’’.
Facebook responded, saying it would continue with its project, but expressed a desire to work with the attorneys-general to respond to their concerns.
‘‘As every parent knows, kids are online all the time, whether adults want it or not. We want to improve this situation by delivering experiences that give parents visibility and control over what their kids are doing,’’ Facebook said.
‘‘We are developing these experiences in consultation with experts in child development, child safety and mental health, and privacy advocates. We also look forward to working with legislators and regulators, including the nation’s attorneys-general.’’
How should we feel about all of this? Outraged, I hope. I’m amazed that you only have to be 13 to use Instagram in the first place. I have relatives who are younger than 13, and like all kids, they’re far from emotionally stable.
The one plausible reason for having Instagram for Kids is ‘‘better the devil you know’’. If there isn’t an Instagram for Kids, it leaves another unsatisfying prospect: kids can do what they’re doing now and lie about their age when signing up and gain access to full-fat Instagram.
What’s interesting about the news that 44 attorneys-general called on Facebook to end its plan to launch Instagram for under-13s is that it’s bipartisan. Child abuse is one of the few subjects that both sides of governments (all around the world) agree on.
So you would be forgiven for thinking there was legislation in place, or in the pipeline, to protect children from the social media companies looking to capture their data.
Nope.
Ironically, the two companies best positioned to make age verification for apps a thing are Apple and Google. And both companies face antitrust complaints from multiple governments around the world. Which makes me think they’re reluctant to roll out ID checks for access to social media apps. A responsibility they likely don’t want to be burdened with as it won’t lead to more revenue, while acting as further evidence of their alleged monopolies over app developers.
Confusingly, the plan won’t bring in more revenue for Instagram either. With Facebook confirming it has no intention to show ‘‘ads in any Instagram experience we develop for people under the age of 13’’.
Two things come to mind here. The first is that I don’t believe a word of it – Zuckerberg has created the world’s best advertising platform(s) to do exactly that, sell ads.
The second is that it shows how highly Facebook values developing online habits. And any business with a ‘‘start ’em young’’ strategy needs to be legislated against sooner rather than later.
That brings us back to the letter the attorneys-general wrote and signed, stating it’s their job to protect the ‘‘youngest citizens, and Facebook’s plans to create a platform where kids under the age of 13 are encouraged to share content online is contrary to that interest’’.
I find it hard to play devil’s advocate with that logic. The best argument I can muster for allowing Instagram for Kids is that a recent study from the University of Oxford’s Internet Institute found there was ‘‘little association’’ between technology use and mental health problems.
The study looked at more than 430,000 10- to -15-year-olds, and study co-author Professor Andrew Przybylski concluded, ‘‘We couldn’t tell the difference between socialmedia impact and mental health in 2010 and 2019.’’
Adding, ‘‘We’re not saying that fewer happy people use more social media. We’re saying that the connection is not getting stronger.’’ Ugh.
Thankfully, it’s not Facebook’s, or even the US Government’s decision whether children under the age of 13 use Instagram for Kids or not. It’s parents who have the final say.
And hopefully, parents around the world will treat Instagram for Kids the same way they do alcohol, cigarettes or too much sugar. And not let their kids anywhere near it.
Any business with a ‘start ’em young’ strategy needs to be legislated against sooner rather than later.