The Australian parliament late last month passed a law that would ban people younger than 16 from using social media. If all goes smoothly, the legislation would be the first of its kind.
Starting at the end of next year, Australia would be the first nation to prohibit children younger than 16 from using social media platforms. Platforms that fail to systematically prevent child registration would be penalized.
Australia’s new law is the strictest yet when it comes to child social media use, but the debate over whether it would effectively solve the negative impacts of social media on children has sparked intense and polarized debate.
A complete ban is difficult to implement. The EU in 2015 proposed a law that would ban Internet use for children younger than 16 without a parent’s permission, including the use of social media platforms. However, technology companies and human rights organizations protested the bill, saying that it limited children’s right to obtain information in the digital age.
Putting the human rights controversy aside, one could get around the social media ban by simply using a virtual private network. Regulations such as this lack significance without worldwide implementation.
Furthermore, the UN Children’s Fund has also warned that strict bans on social media use could lead children to secret and unregulated online spaces — this would actually bring about even more uncontrollable situations.
In Taiwan, child social media addiction is a serious issue. Whether the government can effectively emulate Australia’s methods has yet to be determined. The current consensus in Taiwan is that — rather than a complete ban — we should educate children to improve their media literacy skills while cultivating self-discipline. However, this method is arguably the most difficult to implement.
Not only must parents themselves learn, but — more importantly — they must spend more time accompanying their children to help them become aware of the circumstances surrounding social media use.
Dino Wei is an engineer.
Translated by Kyra Gustavsen
US President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) were born under the sign of Gemini. Geminis are known for their intelligence, creativity, adaptability and flexibility. It is unlikely, then, that the trade conflict between the US and China would escalate into a catastrophic collision. It is more probable that both sides would seek a way to de-escalate, paving the way for a Trump-Xi summit that allows the global economy some breathing room. Practically speaking, China and the US have vulnerabilities, and a prolonged trade war would be damaging for both. In the US, the electoral system means that public opinion
They did it again. For the whole world to see: an image of a Taiwan flag crushed by an industrial press, and the horrifying warning that “it’s closer than you think.” All with the seal of authenticity that only a reputable international media outlet can give. The Economist turned what looks like a pastiche of a poster for a grim horror movie into a truth everyone can digest, accept, and use to support exactly the opinion China wants you to have: It is over and done, Taiwan is doomed. Four years after inaccurately naming Taiwan the most dangerous place on
In their recent op-ed “Trump Should Rein In Taiwan” in Foreign Policy magazine, Christopher Chivvis and Stephen Wertheim argued that the US should pressure President William Lai (賴清德) to “tone it down” to de-escalate tensions in the Taiwan Strait — as if Taiwan’s words are more of a threat to peace than Beijing’s actions. It is an old argument dressed up in new concern: that Washington must rein in Taipei to avoid war. However, this narrative gets it backward. Taiwan is not the problem; China is. Calls for a so-called “grand bargain” with Beijing — where the US pressures Taiwan into concessions
Wherever one looks, the United States is ceding ground to China. From foreign aid to foreign trade, and from reorganizations to organizational guidance, the Trump administration has embarked on a stunning effort to hobble itself in grappling with what his own secretary of state calls “the most potent and dangerous near-peer adversary this nation has ever confronted.” The problems start at the Department of State. Secretary of State Marco Rubio has asserted that “it’s not normal for the world to simply have a unipolar power” and that the world has returned to multipolarity, with “multi-great powers in different parts of the
RSS