A TREND of backlash against what is seen as an irresponsible and harmful business model from social media platforms has been growing in the past two years, and the stakes in the battle were recently raised by a landmark ruling in the United States against Meta — the parent company of Facebook and Instagram — and YouTube, which is owned by Google’s parent company Alphabet. A number of countries have implemented — or, at least, tried to implement — some form of ban on social media access by young people, and the Philippines is now considering a similar measure.
The issue is, of course, extremely contentious. On one side are the social media platforms and people who have found productive careers as “influencers” or “content creators,” who see any form of regulation as restricting free speech. On the other side are those who argue that responsible regulation for the sake of public safety — in this case, the well-being of people 16 and younger — is a duty of the government, and something that is supported by research indicating social media exposure leads to lower educational achievement, and puts young people at risk of bullying, exploitation and other forms of mental harm.
Filipinos have long been recognized as among the world’s most prodigious users of social media, and it is perhaps because of this that the country is a bit late to the party in terms of considering some form of age-related ban or restrictions. Other countries that have already implemented such measures include Australia, Indonesia and France, although it is fair to say that these have only been partly successful. The recent court ruling in a lawsuit brought against Meta and YouTube in the US, if it stands, may change the approach to regulatory efforts.
That lawsuit was unique in that it changed the focus of efforts against social media platforms from taking on harmful or defamatory content, to taking on the very nature of the platforms themselves, casting them as inherently addictive and harmful. Prior to this suit, social media companies in cases in the US were largely shielded by a law called Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996. This essentially says social media platforms cannot be held liable for harmful content posted by their users, and only the users could be sued or be subject to a criminal complaint about it.
This latest suit argued that the platforms themselves were designed to be addictive and were, therefore, liable for exposing young people to risk. A jury agreed, which could set a new precedent for the more than 2,000 similar lawsuits that have been filed in the US alone. However, both Meta and YouTube quickly announced that they intend to appeal, and most legal experts have said it may take several such rulings before the principle becomes generally accepted.
Here in the Philippines, there are currently 10 House and five Senate bills proposing various restrictions on social media access for young people; all of the House bills set the age at 16, while a couple of the Senate bills set the age at 18. The details vary among the different bills, but in general, the preference is for measures that put the responsibility for maintaining the age restrictions on the social media platforms, directing them to implement strict age and identity verification processes, and ban underage users.
Critics of the push for bans argue that doing so may have unintended consequences, and harm children’s ability to develop digital skills. They also point to the practical problems that have arisen in other countries imposing bans on social media access for minors, where enforcement has been difficult. However, alternative solutions that may adequately protect minors online without the sort of restrictions proposed in the various bills in Congress have yet to be explained by these critics.
The recent ruling in the US could change that, because it would put social media in a category of product similar to alcohol or tobacco: defining it as something inherently harmful to one’s well-being, the use of which must be restricted to adults capable of understanding the risk, and making an informed choice. If that ruling is confirmed and becomes a precedent, it would clearly put the responsibility on the social media platforms, in the same way a retail store can be held liable for selling alcohol or cigarettes to underage customers. We will simply have to wait and see how things develop.
