Don’t ban my kids from social media, they wouldn’t exist without it
A ban on social media won’t address the problems kids face online, nor will it claw back lost advertising revenue for legacy publishers, according to Keep Left's Tim Lele.
As a father of three, including two young girls, I understand the deep concerns parents have about their kids’ online safety and the potential harms of social media.
Yet, I also believe my amazing children wouldn’t be here without the benefits of social media. That’s because I married my high school sweetheart – a romance sparked not by smooth-talking teen charisma, but through the wonders of MSN Messenger.
Yes, that primitive form of social media powered by early ’00s dial-up internet. It was a place where I could be myself, where I could communicate honestly and build a connection with someone that wouldn’t happen on the school grounds.
Fast forward to today, and the conversation has shifted. Social media is an evil menace poisoning our young people.
Australia’s decision to ban under-16s from using social media will have global ramifications, but how it came about provides some key lessons in persuasion, the power of the media, and the role of public policy in shaping our digital future.
The power of emotion
Political decisions are rarely made purely on facts and figures. They’re made on narratives – who can tell the most compelling story, who can make the case that their version of events is the truth. In this case, the narrative around the dangers of social media for young people was compelling, emotionally charged, and impossible to ignore.
Who can argue against the pain of a grieving family who believes their child’s life was cut short as a result of online harassment? A single tragic story can overshadow mountains of statistics or expert opinions. And in this case, that’s exactly what happened.
The public was presented with a one-sided emotional narrative. We heard from parents whose children had been harmed online, but we rarely heard from young people who had positive experiences with social media – those who had found supportive communities, forged meaningful friendships, or used platforms to explore their passions.
The media overwhelmingly focused on the dark side of digital life, leaving little room for the other perspective. It’s the classic “emotional appeal” in action and in the court of public opinion, it works.
The influence of traditional media
The role traditional media plays in shaping public policy cannot be overstated. In Australia, News Corp ran an aggressive campaign titled “Let Them Be Kids,” calling for a raise in the minimum age for social media. The campaign was impossible to miss – with multi-page wrap-arounds across nationwide metro papers – the likes we don’t usually see outside the death of a monarch or Harvey Norman EOFY sale.
The timing of this campaign was no accident. Just months earlier, Meta tore up its $70 million/year deal with Australian news publishers. Was the “Let Them Be Kids” campaign a response to that? Call me cynical, but it’s hard not to see the connection.
When you control the megaphone, you can steer the conversation. And News Corp certainly knew how to use its platform to influence policy and force the government to act – getting some retribution and reinforcing its power in the process.
The industry’s weak response – death by committee
It wasn’t just the media making headlines. Social media companies had their say too, but it wasn’t nearly as effective. Their response to the proposed ban felt weak and disconnected.
The industry body for Meta, X, Snap and TikTok – the Digital Industry Group Inc. (DiGI) – urged the government to listen to experts, but the tech giants themselves didn’t engage in the kind of public discourse needed to change minds.
Instead, social media companies hid behind their industry associations, allowing debates to drag on in committee rather than taking a direct stance and presenting a clear alternate view. This lack of leadership left a void, and in public opinion, when you leave a void, someone else will fill it.
Had the tech industry been more proactive, more transparent, and more honest, they might have changed the narrative. Instead, they let the conversation slip away.
The public’s bullshit meter is on overdrive
Gone are the days when corporations can get away with empty slogans like “Safety is our number one priority”. Social media companies have made billions off young people, yet when asked to acknowledge their role in this, they go into full spin mode.
DiGI managing director, Sunita Bose, said: “Keeping young people safe online is a top priority for parents and platforms – mainstream digital services are making multi-billion dollar investments in safety and continued innovation.”
Were they really expecting us to believe they could be trusted to solve the problem themselves?
On the morning the ban was endorsed by national cabinet, Mia Garlick, regional policy director at Meta, was still sidestepping questions from Patricia Karvelas on RN Breakfast about whether platforms profit from advertising to minors, opting instead for vague reassurances about safety investments.
People see through this. When companies refuse to admit the obvious, they lose trust and all credibility. Just be upfront about the trade-off: platforms want kids engaged because they generate revenue, but there are negative consequences.
Own it and explain why blunt instruments like bans won’t work.
The medium isn’t the problem – the messenger is
One central flaw in the current debate is the assumption that the technology itself is to blame. It’s a common pattern throughout history: whenever a new form of communication or technology emerges, there’s a rush to regulate or ban it.
But, as I recently explored in an article on the rise of Martin Luther and the printing press – it’s not the medium that’s problematic; it’s the users.
In the 1500s, the printing press revolutionised the way ideas spread – much like social media has done today. Luther, a brilliant but controversial figure, used this new technology to challenge the Catholic Church’s authority. The printing press allowed his ideas to reach thousands, fueling the Protestant Reformation. But it also spread vitriol, misinformation, and violence.
Luther’s pamphlets didn’t just promote religious reform; they stoked conflict, war, and division. The Catholic Church would have loved to ban the printing press to maintain control, but even they knew you can’t wind back innovation.
Social media, like the printing press and MSN Messenger before it, is just the latest communication tool.
The moral panic around young people’s use of social media doesn’t address the root causes of the issues we see – bullying, predation, misinformation. Those problems existed long before Twitter, TikTok, or Facebook.
The public discourse leading to Australia’s ban is a reminder of the power of persuasion. It shows how media campaigns, emotional narratives, and public opinion can shape policy in ways that logic and evidence alone often can’t.
Tim Lele is the national director of public relations at Keep Left.
Keep up to date with the latest in media and marketing
What an out of touch, one sided view of this issue. Contrarian for clicks it seems.
User ID not verified.
The parents are up against social media companies who employ thousands of engineers, data scientists and analysts, behavioural psychologists, neuroscientists, UX/UI designers and content strategists who are building these platforms with multi-million dollar R&D budgets with the aim of maximising the time spent on platform by the user and to keep them hooked. I don’t think pointing the finger at the parents is right when this is what they are up against.
The mechanism’s used on social media platforms to keep users engaged is the same as used within the gambling industry, the difference being you have to be 18 to gamble in AU.
User ID not verified.
Good try.
But referencing Martin Luther in the 1500’s is less than convincing.
User ID not verified.
Pleased to hear your three ‘amazing children’ remain unaffected by the perils of social media.But it’s hardly a convincing sample.
User ID not verified.
Reads like someone trying to get a PR contract with the DigI.
To compare MSN messenger with modern social media apps and algorithms is absurd and shows a complete lack of understanding of the power of these platforms, as does the old ‘we’ve always had bullying, misinformation, and predatory behaviour… it’s not the social media companies that are the problem’ argument.
User ID not verified.
What ever happened to parental control?
User ID not verified.
Interesting company name.
User ID not verified.
Good on you for putting your opinion out there, it takes bravery to put your name on any statement.
But I disagree with the first point that the narrative was pivotal point in the ban and it went against mountains of statistics. This statement “A single tragic story can overshadow mountains of statistics or expert opinions” doesn’t make sense.
The statistics clearly show social media is terrible for kids: it increases self-harm, feelings of depression, eating disorders and suicidal ideation. The narrative just brought these horrible facts to life, it didn’t go against some consensus that social media is somehow good for kids.
User ID not verified.
So why not let 10-year-olds drive cars Tim?
User ID not verified.