Why banning children from Social Media avoids the real problem

There’s an epidemic of states in India looking to follow the Australia playbook, and ban Social Media for Children under the age of 16, and they’re ignoring a larger problem:

1. The problem is platform design, not Social Media: Platforms are optimised for high engagement, and getting us addicted. We stay on platforms longer when everything is easily digestible and quick to consume: like simple carbohydrates in processed foods.

The now open-sourced X algorithm indicates how much it values sharing, likes, whether people stop and read, and the impact of blocking, muting and and indications that people are not interested in something. Nikita Bier said a couple of weeks ago when they launched articles that they’re going to grant articles more engagement, which led to more crap and copypasta articles in the X stream.

Platform algorithms shape behaviour.

Social Media platforms were built to allow us to engage with people with similar interests, and discover people and points of view. Now they’re about and keeping us on the platform longer. 

States are trying to address this addiction, and I can appreciate that because it has implications in terms of focus, concentration, what people expect of life. It’s not about Social Media, it is about what Social Media has become and what it is doing to society.

Unfortunately, and not unexpectedly, states are using a blunt instruments because Platforms are not taking these bans as feedback in terms of how their platform operates. Last quarter, Mark Zuckerberg spoke about three phases of Social Media: the first was about connecting people, the second about content creators, and the one upon us is about AI generated content. It’s going to get worse.

The problem is that instead of regulating the system, governments are regulating access to the system. The cost is being externalised to the users, instead of being attributed to the platform.

The other side of this is that you’re also painting all platforms with the same brush, which shouldn’t be the case: if there are platforms that aren’t optimised for addiction, and are optimised for conversations between individuals, then that should be allowed.

2. Regulating usage targets the wrong problem: None of the laws, including the Australian law, is seeking to address the real problem I alluded to earlier: dopamine addiction. The problem is less about Children being online, and more about how platforms are designed to deliver dopamine hits.

I studied Cocomelon a couple of years ago because I was considering setting up an AI based content business, and I remember reading articles that they switch scenes very frequently in order to keep children engaged with the video: to increase watch time. It’s not just kids: it’s how all content is being designed now. Instagram has reels and YouTube has shorts, which change form (text, camera angles, background etc) so that your mind remains engaged.

It affects focus,…