NIGHT OWL
Every generation has had a public square. For some, it was the town hall, the newspaper page or the university campus. For today’s young people, it is increasingly the social media feed: a place where friendships are maintained, identities are explored, ideas are tested and communities are built. Governments that treat these platforms as disposable entertainment misunderstand both the technology and the generation using it.
The instinct to protect children is legitimate. The proposed cure, however, is often worse than the disease. Blanket bans, age-based shutdowns and sweeping restrictions may sound decisive, but they do not eliminate demand. They merely push it out of sight. Young people who are locked out of mainstream platforms will not suddenly lose interest in communicating online. Many will migrate to hidden accounts, encrypted groups, offshore services or less regulated corners of the internet, where parents, teachers and authorities have even less visibility.
Prohibition has rarely made difficult behavior disappear. It changes where that behavior happens and who controls it. A ban can therefore create the illusion of safety while making real risks harder to detect. Children who fear punishment for being online may also be less likely to tell an adult when they encounter harassment, manipulation or disturbing material. The policy designed to protect them can end up isolating them.
There is also a wider principle at stake: freedom of speech. Social media is not merely a commercial product like a soft drink or a video game. It is now part of the infrastructure of modern expression. Political movements organize there. Students learn there. Artists find audiences there. Families separated by borders stay connected there. Young people often encounter public debate for the first time there. Restricting access to these spaces restricts participation in civic and cultural life.
Sweeping controls also create a dangerous precedent. Once governments claim the power to decide which citizens may enter a forum for communication, that power can expand. Today the justification may be child safety; tomorrow it may be misinformation, public order or political convenience. Rights are rarely lost in one moment. More often, they are narrowed through policies presented as temporary, technical or protective.
That does not mean the online world is harmless. It means governments must respond intelligently rather than theatrically. The better answer is education, transparency and empowerment. Schools should teach digital literacy as seriously as reading and mathematics. Parents should be given practical tools to guide younger users without turning the home into a surveillance state. Platforms should explain how their algorithms work, offer meaningful controls and respond quickly to abuse. Police and courts should target criminal conduct, not ordinary expression.
Most importantly, young people should be included in the conversation. Policies made about them without them are likely to fail because they ignore how social media is actually used. A teenager may rely on an online community for friendship, creative collaboration, disability support, cultural identity or help during a crisis. Removing that connection in the name of protection can cause its own harm.
Freedom of speech is easiest to defend when the speech is comfortable and the medium is familiar. The real test comes when new forms of communication unsettle institutions. Governments should resist the temptation to answer that discomfort with control.
A free society does not protect children by teaching them that difficult spaces must be closed. It prepares them to enter those spaces with judgment, resilience and support. Social media will continue to evolve, and young people will evolve with it. The task of government is not to force that reality underground, but to make it safer without making it silent.
No comments:
Post a Comment