Should the state ban social media for children? (Venue: by the river)

(Scroll down for topic intro) THE VENUE: By the river Let's meet outside by the river. You'll find joining instructions below or at: https://rbphilo.com/riverside.html Etiquette Our discussions are friendly and open. We are a discussion group, not a for-and-against debating society. But it helps if we try to stay on topic. And we should not talk over others, interrupt them, or try to dominate the conversation. WhatsApp groups We have two WhatsApp groups. One is to notify events, including extra events such as meeting for a meal or a drink during the week which we don't normally put on the Meetup site. The other is for open discussion of whatever topics occur to people. If you would like to join either or both groups, please send a note of the phone number you would like to use to Richard Baron on: website.audible238@passmail.net. (This is an alias that can be discarded if it attracts spam, hence the odd words.) THE TOPIC: Should the state ban social media for children? Thank you to Miguel for suggesting this week's topic (with edits and additional thoughts by Duncan). Earlier this week the UK government announced that it will ban social media for all under-16s, including platforms such as Instagram, Facebook, Youtube, Twitter and Snapchat. The scope and implementation closely follows that of the Australian government. Implementation specifics aside, is this the sort of thing the government ought to be doing? More generically, the question is one of whether the government should regulate the affairs of children and teenagers or whether that is mainly (or strictly) the responsibility of the parents or legal guardians. For example, governments in most European countries do not allow children and teenagers to buy alcohol or tobacco. The UK government, specifically, also does not allow under-18s to gamble, buy fireworks and knifes, or do tattoos. We broadly accept these limits because we believe minors need protection from harms they may not fully understand. On the other hand, there is a long tradition of thinking that the state should stay out of private life as much as possible, and that parents — not politicians — are best placed to decide what is right for their own children. John Stuart Mill is his essay On Liberty (1859) sets out the "harm principle" — the idea that the state is only justified in interfering with a person's freedom if they are harming others. What you do to yourself, or within your own home, is your own business. But does this also apply to what you do to those who are under your care? On the opposing end, John Rawls offers a sympathetic view of state intervention, arguing that some restrictions are justified if they benefit the least well-off. Back as far as 1651, Thomas Hobbes wrote about a social contract in which individuals voluntarily surrender some freedoms to the monarch in exchange for peace, order, and protection from the violence of the "state of nature". The choice of social media itself is also a debatable topic. The harms of alcohol and tobacco are well known and these don't seem to provide any particular long term benefits. On the other hand, even though the use of social media has been associated with higher rates of anxiety and depression, there is still no solid and established causal relationship between social media use and poor mental health. Moreover, one could see potential benefits of social media. Youtube, for example, can provide access to high-quality and free educational content. Social media also reports on news and events that are left out of mainstream media. Another question is: what happens when these children and teenagers are allowed to use social media from their 16th birthday onwards? Will they be savvy users of these platforms or more gullible and easier to manipulate? The personal consumption of tobacco and alcohol, gambling, etc, does not usually interfere with the lives of third parties. Social media manipulation however, has been shown to sway election results and interfere with the democratic process. Is a social media ban comparable to a ban in tobacco and alcohol purchases? What will happen to those children who have come to depend on online communities with shared interests ? Will those communities adapt and find other online venues ? Or is it better that children create a social life in the real world, where they are forced to interact with others with diverse and often opposing opinions ? Clearly, some children will still be able to access these sites, perhaps because of technical capability or lack of parental supervision. Will this constitute a failure of the policy ? We accept that some children will have access to alcohol but the vast majority don't. Is it a case of "Perfect is the enemy of good" ? We have occasionally been asked by a child at Cafe Nero what the topic of the day was. Hopefully, that is something she will continue to be allowed to do. \-\-\- The official press release by the government can be found here: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/social-media-to-be-banned-for-under-16s-in-landmark-government-move-to-givekids-their-childhood-back And the BBC article here: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/c77yx1jpg1nt There's usefully summary of the technical options and challenges in this video from the Computerphile channel (Nottm Uni CS dept): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2jJeSgO_MGo

Venue

Near The Mill. On the grass by the river with our bovine friends

Cambridge

Confirm times, availability, prices, and entry requirements with the official source before attending.