Why banning kids from social media is a terrible idea

Back in December, Australia became the first country in the world to ban social media for kids under 16. Simply put, popular platforms like TikTok, Instagram and Snapchat were ordered to block all Australian children from their sites or face hefty fines.

Should Canada follow suit? The momentum is growing.

Last month, Culture Minister Marc Miller said the Carney Liberals are “very seriously” considering a social media ban for kids after the party adopted a motion at its recent convention.

Manitoba Premier Wab Kinew went one step further, announcing last weekend that his province would be the first to bring in its own social media ban for youth — and that the ban would apply to AI chatbots.

Here in Ontario, the Ford government said this week it’s considering banning all cellphones from school property.

Here’s the key question: Would ordering kids off social media actually work? Or would a ban create more problems than it actually solves?

Our guest on this week’s Closer Look podcast is Michael Geist, a University of Ottawa law professor and the Canada Research Chair in Internet and e-Commerce Law.

Transcript

SPEAKER_00 0:00

We want to keep kids off the platform. But let's recognize that in order to do that, you have to get everybody's age, right? I mean, if you're saying that you want to ensure that people of a certain age are accessing this site, then everybody is required to do this.

SPEAKER_01 0:42

Zach Trunzo, executive producer, uh is in the room. Uh it's been a week, uh, and it's funny because uh we don't spend a lot of time together now through the week. Uh so it's nice to get back in here. Thank goodness. At least once a week uh to get caught up on. But one thing is for sure, so much seems to transpire within those uh those seven days. Uh and today certainly uh uh a big thing uh where the trillium is concerned, and yet another uh honor being bestowed upon uh what I think is just the best team in the biz.

SPEAKER_02 1:11

Yeah. Thursday was a huge day for us. A really proud moment. And I and I've told the team this kind of teary-eyed. I mean, I am proud of this team. The Trillium team, just to remind everybody, is our Bureau of Queen's Park, we they launched three years ago with the goal of really keeping a close eye on the the big the the politics and the policymaking that goes on at Queen's Park, with a real core mission to do deep dive investigative journalism. The Trillium has been nominated for the Missioner Award, which is the highest honor in Canadian journalism, it's the highest honor in public service journalism. It's it's it's it's uh it it recognizes the journalism that makes a difference, Scott, right? Like that that really uh brings change, that that shines a light on things that need that need public attention. And uh it is it is the pinnacle of our I mean, we don't do this for awards, but like there there's lots. There's the Canadian Association of Journalists give out really prestigious awards. There's the National Newspaper Awards we've been on a long time. But the Missioner Awards, the Missioner Award is given out at Riedel Hall by the Governor General. It's it's quite an honor.

SPEAKER_01 2:05

Aaron Ross Powell, so to put this into perspective, for those that may not know, this is like being nominated for an Academy Award, or if you're a restaurateur or chef, having your restaurant uh labeled a Michelin Star restaurant. This is a big deal. Trevor Burrus, Jr. I say that's a fair comparison. Yeah.

SPEAKER_02 2:20

Yeah, for sure. And and just to bring everyone up to speed, they're nominated for the great work they've done on the Skills Development Fund, right? This is the labor ministry fund that was giving out uh training dollars and the trillium, basically simply put, the trillium using FOI requests and all kinds of investigative tools was able to figure out that a lot of this money was going to people who were politically connected to the Ford government, whether they were big donors, uh former staffers, things like that. And uh it's uh it's a they've it's a phenomenal work of pieces, like it's not just one piece of journalism, it's just ongoing investigations. And uh I'll I'll I'll say it from the uh uh the Missioner Award press release that came out. I need to remove my glasses, Scott, because I can't read because I'm not sure. You're like me, take your glasses off so you can see. I'm an old man, uh can't see anymore. Um as the press release noted from the Missioner Awards Foundation, the Trillium found multiple examples of firms well connected to the government getting large grants from the fund at the insistence of the labor minister's office, despite middling or low ratings given to their applications by the nonpartisan civil servants who vetted them. Um it was a tri the trillium that revealed why the labor minister was absent from Queen's Park on the day the auditor released her pretty scathing report. It was because he was in Paris for the wedding of a friend who was the lobbyist for two companies to which his ministry had awarded millions of skills development dollars uh too. Um the fallout from these revelations include an investigation by the province's integrity commissioner, two police investigations into groups that uh got money from the fund, and even lawsuits uh by the government against two recipients attempting to recover taxpayer money it has awarded them. Um really, this really does come down to tax dollars and the way they're spent and the way they're used. And uh these revelations from the Trillium, if you remember, it kind of kicked off a firestorm in the legislature. A lot of questions being asked, especially the opposition NDP really peppering the government uh over this uh these decisions that were made. So it's a real uh I don't want to speak for Jessica Smith Cross, uh. And for Aiden Shamandi, who's now a Toronto Today reporter, who helped contribute to this uh this reporting. But that's an unbelievable feeling to get a phone call. They actually got a little bit of advanced notice that this was coming, and I think they all fell off their chairs. It's just it's just uh it's it is the highest honor we have, and uh it's so well deserved. And uh, you know, they're not gonna go out and boast about it, but I want them to know how proud we are, all of them. Well, how proud we are of all of them. Trevor Burrus, Jr.

SPEAKER_01 4:39

We are more than happy to uh boast on their behalf. Uh so fingers crossed, uh way to go team, uh just incredible. Okay, to uh this week's show, uh we've talked a little bit on this program about uh kids in cell phone use, uh kids in social media use. In fact, Australia recently banning uh social media use uh for kids 16 and under. Now here in Canada, the Liberal government is looking at it. In Ontario, they're even thinking of taking it one step further and banning cell phones on school property. Uh it's uh it's been in the headlines. Today, we're gonna uh talk to somebody who doesn't necessarily agree with the social media ban.

SPEAKER_02 5:14

Yeah, you're right. There it's kind of it's taken over in the headlines where we need to have a social media ban, we need to do something because it is a big concern. Ask any parent, they're concerned about how much their kids are on their phones. But the question is whether it's a ban is the right move, right? Or if we should be doing other things ourselves as parents or as this are demanding the social media companies change their practices uh as a whole, not just as they relate to kids under 16. So it's a really interesting conversation. And uh Michael Geist is our guest today.

SPEAKER_01 5:42

Aaron Ross Powell Yeah, he's terrific. Uh professor of law and uh of course Canada Research Chair in Internet and e-commerce law uh at U Ottawa. We had Michael on a few years ago uh because he was uh he was a driving force behind speaking out on the uh uh Bill C 18, uh the online news act. The online news act, right?

SPEAKER_02 5:58

And he and he's he's a fantastic writer and he's written a great piece online about why this is not the great idea we think it is, right? And we just thought, man, it'd be great to have a chat with him because we have talked to so many people from the other side who really have been advocating for this. We want to give the the other side a chance to talk.

SPEAKER_01 6:16

There's a growing push across Canada to ban social media and even AI tools for kids under 16. It's politically popular, emotionally resonant, and framed as protecting young people. But is that really the case? Michael Geist doesn't necessarily agree that these bans will work and may actually make things worse and risk creating new problems around privacy, free expression, and even kids' rights. Geist is a law professor at the University of Ottawa, Canada Research Chair in Internet and E-commerce law, and of course, one of the country's leading voices on digital policy. He joins us today. Michael, uh, welcome to Closer Look. We appreciate your time. All right, uh, Michael, the uh political momentum here uh seems real from federal liberals to provinces like Manitoba. So why do you think this idea has caught on so quickly despite uh the concerns that you raise?

SPEAKER_00 7:10

Well, I think part of it is that some of the concerns haven't been raised. So uh I think that some of the policymaking is in in a bit of a vacuum. But I mean, more fundamentally, I think everyone can agree that there are concerns about social media. I think this applies not just to kids, but applies more broadly. But there are concerns about social media. And so you certainly have some cohorts out there saying, do something. And this targets obviously some of the most vulnerable in our society, our kids, and it's doing something. The problem is once you scratch a little bit below the surface, you take a look at how this would function, whether when implemented elsewhere it actually works, you find out that good intentions are not the same as good policy.

SPEAKER_01 7:54

Uh Michael, you call this ban uh an illusion of protection. Uh, what do you mean by that? And why is it so appealing to policymakers?

SPEAKER_00 8:02

Well, it's appealing because you know, policymakers always want to stand with kids, and it gives them an easy response to say, okay, we've we know there are concerns about social media, and so we're going to fix it by saying that kids can't access it. But as I say, once you get into some of the implementation pieces of this, as well as the experience elsewhere, you find it actually doesn't work that well. And the implementation side can itself create some real significant harms.

SPEAKER_02 8:27

Let's talk about the we know that Australia's done this. What do we know about how it's gone there?

SPEAKER_00 8:32

Yeah, no, that's uh that's I think the starting point for a lot of people is that they are the one jurisdiction that implemented it at the towards the end of last year. And I think quite helpfully, they have an e-safety commissioner that came out with a report a month or so ago that looked at the first three months of how it's been working. And, you know, it was certainly a wake-up call when it first took place. Suddenly, the companies themselves were seeking to respond to this. Parents were finding that their kids uh were in some instances being kicked off social media platforms. But the reality from the eSafety Commissioner is that months after this took place, about 70% of the targets, the kids, still retained access to at least one social media platform, whether it's Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat, or TikTok. So roughly seven in 10 are still on social media. And I have to say that, you know, if uh a student of mine hands in a paper that gets a 30%, I say that that's not doing all that well. In fact, it's worth noting as well that ETC e-safety commissioner noted that at least so far, no discernible reduction in cyberbullying or image-based abuse complaints. It simply hasn't worked. And even with the current structure, it's subject to legal challenge. It's been criticized by groups like Amnesty and UNICEF. So it's come at a real cost and hasn't really proven effective.

SPEAKER_02 9:54

Does that surprise you? I mean, I kind of feel like that was gonna be the case. Like anytime you ban anything that's that kids like to do, it's it's hard to believe, oh, yeah, 100% of them are just gonna not do it anymore.

SPEAKER_00 10:03

Yeah, no, it's not it shouldn't come as a surprise. You know, kids, some of the kids are gonna be fairly tech savvy, you're gonna find ways to circumvent. Um, and so even the best of intentions to try to address the issue is is probably gonna run into some challenges. I think more fundamentally, though, by focusing specifically on kids, in some ways it lets the platforms off the hook. You know, if we if we do agree that there are real concerns with respect to some of the social media companies in terms of some of the privacy issues or content moderation, or that they're inconsistent in how they apply their policies or just not transparent enough, or the algorithms themselves sometimes feel like there's a sense of manipulation or that they're addictive. I mean, there is a long list of concerns. And it's not clear to me, actually, it is clear to me, those concerns don't end when you turn 17. I mean, these are real issues for all of society. And so a solution that is premised on saying, well, we're gonna try to find a mechanism to ensure that if you're 16 and under, you don't go there, but after that, you're on your own. That's not an effective policy approach.

SPEAKER_01 11:07

Aaron Powell Michael, you talk about letting uh social media off the hook. Let's uh dive into that a little bit more. How does focusing on the kids distract from that real problem?

SPEAKER_00 11:16

Well, there are these real issues, right? I mean, uh, you know, I I don't I I subscribe to the view that these companies are inconsistent when it comes to the very policies that they often promote, that there isn't enough transparency about what that's actually taking place once you get under the hood a bit. There are clearly, I think, privacy risks. And, you know, we've had now a number of cases where there's litigation that that highlights that they have been structured in a way that is, in some ways, designed to be addictive, keep people on the platforms. I mean, that's in many ways the whole purpose of this. These raise a whole host of issues. Some of them are before the courts, others uh would merit legislation, right? I think we need more effective privacy laws to deal with some of these issues. We need, I think, online harms legislation that ensures that these companies act in a responsible fashion and we can flesh out what that means with respect to a social media company. But saying that, well, our answer to this is a ban that we know doesn't work is putting a band-aid on the issue. It's not addressing many of these other concerns. And as I say, in some ways, some of the companies themselves will say, okay, fine. You know, if if that's all you're asking me to do is to kick a subset of my users off the platform who we know wink wink are still likely going to try to find a way to get back on. You haven't accomplished very much.

SPEAKER_02 12:31

That's right. And what you point out so well in your piece, too, is all the privacy implications of having this kind of ban, because you then have to validate everyone who's on it to make sure they're in that that what talk about all the problems that ri raises.

SPEAKER_00 12:42

Yeah. No, I'm so glad that you raised that because we need to recognize it. I find it somewhat ironic at times where people talk about the need to target what takes place with kids and say, okay, we want to keep kids off the platform. But let's recognize that in order to do that, you have to get everybody's age, right? I mean, if you're saying that you want to ensure that people of a certain age are accessing the site, then everybody is required to do this. So the effect is to say that tens of millions of Canadians need to provide either some kind of identification or go through some kind of process in order to ensure that they qualify for this new age-gating mechanism that's been established. Well, you know, we know that if what you're doing is an age verification system where people are, let's say, uploading their driver's license or other official ID, that there are hacks and security breaches and suddenly that kind of information is put out more broadly. If they use something that is known as age estimation, so they this intentionally the company essentially takes your picture and sort of has a guess as to how old you are. Let's leave aside the fact that this doesn't really work. I mean, there you you can't really distinguish between a 16-year-old and a 17-year-old. You couldn't do it in person. An algorithm isn't going to do any better. And so what happens is these services then say, okay, we have to go to a next level. And they engage in surveillance of the user. So they start saying, okay, who's their friend group? What kind of language do they use when they post? What are they posting about? And try to use that as indicators to figure out how old this person is. Well, engaging in even more surveillance of people in order to try to protect them strikes me as that's pretty perverse. And if we on top of all of that, the companies that are engaged in these kinds of age gating services are almost uniformly outside of Canada. And so Canadian privacy law doesn't even protect us for the purposes of what's taking place. Trevor Burrus, Jr.

SPEAKER_01 14:34

Michael, there's also a uh really interesting point about kids moving uh to smaller, less moderated platforms. Could a ban actually make the internet less safe for young people?

SPEAKER_00 14:44

Well, that's always the risk, right? And I and I think it is certainly the case that we know this in lots of other contexts, that if you you target sort of the tall poppies, so to speak, you target the the companies that are having the the most amount of of impact, and and I think rightly so, but that doesn't necessarily end the behavior. The reality is people like this content, they like social media, and in some instances, social media is really valuable, valuable to kids too. And so they're going to seek this out. And whether they seek it out in services that are larger, that you know have a long way to go and I think still require some regulation, but uh at least are you know in the realm of trying to be oftentimes legitimate actors, if not always good actors, you've got other players in this that you know see an opportunity to hoover up data. And I don't think that uh that you know sending people to those kind of sites may really exacerbate some of the problems.

SPEAKER_02 15:42

Aaron Powell Yeah, you really open my eyes because you can almost picture the social media companies loving this idea. Because it's like, yes, it does take them, it does take them off the hook. So, in terms of that like algorithmic manipulation, addictive engagement design, all the inadequate content moderation, what's the one thing, the dream thing that social media could do to help everybody and not just kids under 16? Well, what can we how can we make it better?

SPEAKER_00 16:03

Well, I don't know, we're gonna pick just one, but I think we're gonna certainly start with privacy and transparency. Uh and so fundamentally, we are talking about a business model that is all about accessing as much user data as possible and come finding different ways to commercialize it. You know, people like those services. They're largely free on the basis that you surrender all this data to them. Uh, but I think it's pretty clear that that we need to ensure that Canadian privacy law is up to the standard to ensure that people can make the kinds of choices that they want to make, that their consents are adequately reflected and that the law can be effectively enforced. And too often that's not the case. I think we need to ensure that these companies are far more transparent about how they function. Too often, people may make complaints or raise concerns about something that's taking place, and it goes into some sort of void, and we don't really know what happens. And then at the end of the day, I do think that there are real legal duties that we can ascribe to these companies. It's in the last online harms bill, it was described as a duty to act responsibly. There's some amount of flexibility there. And in fact, things like transparency and privacy could easily be seen as being part of what it means to act in a responsible fashion. Uh, but I think at the same time, it also may go further, of course, with real plans to address some of the harms and facing the prospect of real liability where those companies fail to do so.

SPEAKER_01 17:24

Uh Michael, in your piece, uh you raise a really important point, and that is that kids have constitutional rights too. So, how might a ban uh run into charter challenges?

SPEAKER_00 17:35

Well, fundamentally, a ban is saying that a certain segment of society can't access the information that is perfectly lawful information. And so it has a direct implication for their freedom of expression. And we've seen whether that is domestically within the charter, internationally, the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child have really emphasized that children's rights in the digital environment include rights to information. It's not just about things that you express yourself, but also about your ability to participate and access information. And I think many that have looked at this have said listen, you need to understand that these rights of the child of children constrain not just the platforms, but regulators too. I mean, these are rights apply to kids, but they have to be brought into the equation, both if you are a company thinking about the kind of processes you put into place, but also if you're a government or a regulator that's thinking about creating some some limitations associated with it.

SPEAKER_02 18:35

This might be an unfair question, but I guess not necessarily your expertise, but the problem we're dealing with here, and I'm gonna ask this question for my wife because she asks me this every day. What do we do as parents? The parents are struggling, we're constantly fighting with the kids, so they are looking to governments to do something. So at least they could say, sorry, Johnny, the government says you're not allowed on there. So what do we do?

SPEAKER_00 18:53

Yeah, no, I mean that's a that's a really good point. We went through it as well with our kids, and and we did have conversations with them about what it what we thought responsible use of the internet, let's say, meant. Uh it we also limited uh, you know, access to cell phones until they reached a certain age, but that I recognize gets harder and harder to do. And there's such great value at times with having that kind of access that you want to find a way to have the benefits without some of the risks. But I think we should recognize that implicit in your question is that parents often want to have some say and play some role. And there may be different choices for different parents. And one of the problems with this legislative approach is that basically we say, parents, you don't get to decide. The government is c is here to decide, and it is deciding that your kids don't have access, even if you are of the view that your kids should have access. And I think we've got to find a way to address that. You know, what supporters of this have pointed to one survey from Angus Reed that that talks about this, and that and and they've sort of latched on to the fact that a fair high number of respondents said that, you know, they would like to see something happen here with respect to age. But what they often don't talk about is both there is widespread disagreement on what age is appropriate in terms of establishing some sort of rules. But even more, a very large percentage also say parents should have a role here. Well, it's pretty tough to reconcile on the one hand, saying government is going to establish these limitations, with on the other, saying parents should have a role. Um in fact, I don't think you can reconcile it. In some ways, you do have to make some choices.

SPEAKER_02 20:32

Yeah, that's right. I think you're doing it now by talking to us and in your writing. But if you could speak to someone in the current government who's thinking about doing this, what would you say to them?

SPEAKER_00 20:40

I'd say that there is a long list of digital policies that we've either gotten wrong or haven't got around to addressing. And that while it is tempting to go after what might be seen as low-hanging fruit, this is sort of like would be viewed by some as an easy win, it's not. And in fact, in many respects, the risk that politicians run with putting something like this forward is that it just doesn't work. And so you're right back six months later with people saying, hey, this didn't work. And what's the response? Well, now you need to go further. You didn't you didn't get tough enough. And suddenly we find that this becomes even more expansive and more problematic because people keep doubling down as opposed to acknowledging that perhaps the policy was a bad choice in the to begin with.

SPEAKER_02 21:24

Real quickly, what about the musings by the provincial government, Michael, where they're saying we might ban cell phones just physically from schools? What do you think of that?

SPEAKER_00 21:31

Yeah, well, I listen, I think access to cell phones in schools is a is a somewhat different discussion. I I recognize certainly the desire to keep it out of the classroom because you want people's attention focused on what's taking place in the classroom. I mean, listen, uh, in a university environment, uh, it's long been the case. You see kids bit you see this not kids anymore, but you see the students' heads buried in their computers. Everybody's got a laptop there. Some might be taking notes, others are doing things other than taking notes. We recognize that. And you know, you can make those choices. They're all adults. They can make those kinds of choices. Once you're dealing with kids at younger ages, I think it it makes a lot, it may make a lot of sense to establish some of those limitations in that particular environment. But that is not the same as having a province-wide or national ban on accessing a service altogether. It doesn't matter where it's taking place. It's simply saying that you can't access the service at all. And on top of all of that, if you start moving towards province-based provisions like you have in Manitoba or discussions elsewhere where they keep saying they're going to do that, the companies themselves are either going to pass along those costs, or more likely, many of them may well say, hey, you know what? We're just, this is not a jurisdiction that we can operate in if suddenly we have to carve out everybody in Manitoba in order to meet these standards. And, you know, we've seen this movie before, as you well know, with the Online News Act where you bring in legislation and you think you can just say, hey, we're good, we're, you know, full speed ahead. You're going to comply. And the companies keep telling you, if you pass this, we may have to exit the market altogether. And I and I fear that we might see that take place here as well.

SPEAKER_01 23:10

Great point. Yeah, we see uh how well that worked. Uh Michael, anything else uh on this issue before we let you go?

SPEAKER_00 23:16

No, I think that was uh a great discussion. I'm glad you're you're airing it because I think you know this is an issue that is obviously attracting more and more attention. And at a minimum, we need, I think, a real robust debate grounded in actual facts as opposed to sort of some of the emotion of saying do something.

SPEAKER_01 23:31

All right, good stuff. Michael Geist, uh professor of law and Canada Research Chair in Internet and E-Commerce Law at the University of Ottawa. Uh, Michael, always good to see you. Appreciate your time.

SPEAKER_00 23:40

My pleasure. Thanks for having me.

SPEAKER_01 23:44

That's a great discussion uh with Michael Geist. And always good to get the other side of the coin, right? The other's the other perspective uh on an issue, and he certainly provided that.

SPEAKER_02 23:52

Yeah, because it's it has been in the headlines and there are many people calling for it. I think of Catherine Martinko, who's a great author, great journalist, a very smart lady. She's been on our show a couple of times, and she is so passionate about helping parents understand how to limit screen time for their kids and putting it on the parents' shoulders and giving them strategies, because that's really the tug of war that every parent's dealing with right now. Like how do you get your kids off these devices, right? Yes. And so I can see why some people are looking toward the government. And I remember she did support the uh the ban in Australia and thought it was a good idea. Yep. And but even she would agree I I'm sure that it also depends on how it unfolds. Can it can it be enacted in a way that actually works? And then we're not sure in Australia if it's actually working. If 70% of the kids are still using social media, it's like I don't know, it's like you know, kids can't smoke or they can't use vapes, they're still vaping. I'm not saying that's a good thing. I'm just saying that's the reality. You were a kid once too. You you broke every rule that, as far as I've heard, that's still breaking. You broke every rule there is. But it is great. And Michael's such a smart guy because he does that thing that we can never forget is so critical. And that's looking at every issue from all sides and all perspective, and understanding that there's some raw data we can look up. There's a lot of facts we can we can assess before we make a decision, even though it seems popular. And Manitoba's premier is you know talking about how we're gonna be the first province to do this, and the Kearney liberals are are studying this, and it could make for great headlines, it gets people excited. It reminds me of the the school cell phone ban in Ontario when they first announced it. Yeah. Ask any teacher. There's no ban in prison, isn't it? No, the kids are on it more than ever. So it has to be done. If you're gonna do it, it has to be done in a way that actually works. And as Michael pointed out, maybe maybe points out, maybe it wouldn't work. I mean, then that's you know, I hope we left you with something to think about. That's our goal on a Sunday morning.

SPEAKER_01 25:35

If only we could get the kids to respond to us quicker. Is is it just me, maybe uh you know what it's in their hands. Yeah. And you send them a text. They're not answering, no.

SPEAKER_02 25:43

No, because they're on something other they're on some other app Twitch or some other platform that's a good idea.

SPEAKER_01 25:49

It probably shouldn't be. Uh okay, that's it uh for us uh this week. Closerlook at villagemedia.ca. That's our email uh address. Reach out anytime. And of course, uh, you can check out back episodes uh of the program. You can sign up to have it sent directly to your inbox at closelook at villagemedia.ca for Zach Trunzo, executive producer of uh closerlook, and Michael Friscolanti, our editor-in-chief here at Village Media. I'm Scott Sexmith. We're back uh next Sunday, May the 10th, right here on Closer Look.

SPEAKER_03 26:17

Frisco and Scott's wardrobe, provided in part by Morris Clothing for Men.