A researcher warns that a ban on social networks for teenagers could be counterproductive and detrimental, suggesting alternative approaches to manage their online presence.
The debate surrounding the proposed ban on social networks for children under fifteen in Czechia, initiated by Prime Minister Andrej Babiš, raises critical questions about the effectiveness and consequences of such prohibitive measures. Several experts, including the researcher interviewed, argue that outright bans may do more harm than good by pushing the issue rather than resolving it. They highlight that many adolescents aged fourteen to sixteen will inevitably access social networks regardless of a ban, and parents will have limited ability to guide their children in navigating these platforms.
The discussion also reveals that current regulations already exist, forbidding social network usage for children under thirteen, which are not effectively enforced. Experts suggest that instead of imposing new bans, stakeholders should focus on better enforcing existing laws and educating both parents and teenagers about responsible social media use. The researcher emphasizes that understanding the nuances and potential benefits of social networks may lead to more beneficial policies.
Furthermore, the conversation points out the lack of attention given to the advantages social networks can provide, such as community building, social skills development, and access to information. By excluding these aspects from the debate, there’s a risk of overlooking constructive ways to manage social media engagement among young people. Experts advocate for a more balanced approach that recognizes both the risks and benefits of social networking in the lives of teenagers.
