Australia’s social media restrictions on children were sold as decisive action on harm. But the policy risks becoming symbolic, unenforceable, and ultimately counterproductive.

It’s March 2028, and a federal election is due. The government is confident given the ructions within the opposition but nonetheless somewhat nervous because it has been under sustained assault for rising prices, houses prices and defence budget pressures. About 300,000 new voters are on the electoral roll, people who are aged 15 or 16 now.

At an early election meeting, one of these new voters invites the prime minister, Anthony Albanese to explain just what the social media bans were all about, and whether, in the light of what (in 2028) was known it had been a worthwhile policy, worth persisting with, perhaps expanding into other social control areas.

I have little doubt that the prime minister will perceive that the question is somewhat hostile in intent and will want to cut it off straight away. He will hope and expect that many of the nation’s 13 or 15-year-olds will broadly agree that government had to respond to a serious social problem. But they, of course, are not the only ones to be considered. Millions of parents, teachers and others in the community have been concerned about online bullying and harassment, youth suicide, the sexualisation of children and pressure upon young people to conform, and the addiction of some young people to various forms of social media systems.

He will explain that people on both sides of politics recognised the problem, and the need to restrict access to some of the more harmful new forms of online interchange emerging. The former leader of the opposition, Peter Dutton, for example had been a strong supporter of government intervention on the issue.

Albanese was once a king of the kids himself and will admit that nanny-state responses can be unpopular. But the responses must be proportionate to the problem and government, he will say, was very careful in deciding that its response to the problem had to be in putting pressure on the source of the problem – the social media companies – rather than on kids themselves. Government had also recognised the ingenuity of kids, and the fact that many would be able quickly to get around any systems put in. No one was going to police this or make it a crime. The pressure would be on the online companies to see if they were seriously trying to reduce access.

He would no doubt be also thinking smugly that hardly anyone would be blaming him for trying, even if they had come to realise that sincere and well-intended efforts had been largely useless. There are some cynical politicians – I can think of a number who are or recently were among coalition conservatives – who proclaim themselves to be against some general social evil, accusing other politicians of ignoring or condoning the problem. They use such occasions for moral grandstanding whenever they need a political distraction or are suffering relevance deprivation.

Likewise, some left-of-centre politicians are not beyond the political equivalent, described by some as virtue signalling. Usually, one side is against sin and supposed offences against personal morality; the other against wider social evils or injustices, including sexual violence.

Albanese may have something of a niche with his taking the lead to protect kids against the evils of social media. But he is not hypocritical in the sense that he is........

© Pearls and Irritations