Editorial: Instagram teen accounts just Meta being seen to do something

The only way to protect our children from the dangers posed from social media use is prohibition, pure and simple, writes the editor.

Meta’s move just shifts the onus back on busy parents.

Instagram’s new “teen accounts” feature that has been launched in the wake of The Courier-Mail’s Let Them Be Kids campaign is a bit like saying to your 13-year-old that it’s fine to get drunk whenever you want, so long as you do it at home.

It is not a solution to the serious – and far too often deadly – issues we have been highlighting. Rather, it is the latest example of the socially irresponsible media behemoth Meta trying to distract from the dirty little secret of its business model: that it relies on addiction.

The only way to protect our children from the dangers posed from social media use is prohibition, pure and simple. That is why federal government ministers should not fall into the trap of being distracted by what Meta has just launched – surely not coincidentally, coming a week after Prime Minister Anthony Albanese courageously and correctly promised to enact a legislated social media ban for the under-16s.

The core problem remains. And until a total ban is enforced, we will be forced to – tragically – report on horror stories told by parents of bullying and abuse, and evidence from psychologists that until the age of 16 our children’s brains are not developed enough to be trusted on platforms that are literally designed to induce addiction.

The legislating of a minimum social media age will give parents a new weapon – that “it’s against the law”. Mr Albanese agrees with us that the age should be 16, but has said he will await the completion of an age verification trial before legislating ahead of the next election due in the first half of next year. That is fair enough. But the action must follow.

Currently, access to Instagram is technically not allowed for anyone aged under 13. But the only barrier to entry is a tick-box, meaning it is not really a ban at all.

Meta’s new “teen accounts” will be automatically applied over the next 60 days to the accounts of all of its users known to be under 18 (with those aged 16 and 17 able to then opt out).

The promise is that problematic content like violence, cosmetics and sexuality will be blocked – and any adults the child does not know will not be able to message them.

A new automatic sleep mode will silence notifications between 10pm and 7am, and users will receive a nudge when they have spent an hour on the app in a single day.

There will also be a range of parental controls to allow usage to be limited, and parents will be able to monitor which accounts their kids interact with and what they have seen.

However those controls only put the onus back on busy parents – rather than Meta itself taking the responsibility that it should. These are also the types of functionality that a socially responsible company would have already had in place before the threat from government of a legislated ban on access for users aged under 16.

We therefore maintain that this is little more than an attempt to be seen to be doing something; to deflect from the public debate over the legislated ban that has been directly prompted by The Courier-Mail’s campaigning.

As federal Coalition frontbencher David Coleman rightly pointed out yesterday: “Meta isn’t changing anything on age verification. Meta will do everything it can to avoid a real system of age verification, because it will lead to them losing huge numbers of underage users.”

So do not be fooled. Meta only cares about itself, not your kids.

GAMES HERE TO STAY, SO EMBRACE THEM

Those naysayers who still think it best that Queensland reneges on its agreement to host the Olympic and Paralympic Games in 2032 need look no further than the debacle over the 2026 Commonwealth Games for an example as to why they are wrong.

Regardless of the at-times-sloppy way the planning for the 2032 event has been handled by our political leaders so far, there is no doubt the event will end up being a massive boost for our state and its capital city – with the benefits huge and really, as-yet, not fully understood.

The state of Victoria, of course, took the opposite approach when things got a little ropey in its plans to host the 2026 Commonwealth Games – with the former premier Dan Andrews simply pulling out.

That resulted in the government having to pay $380m in taxpayer money as a cancellation fee to Games organisers – it cost almost half a billion dollars, for nothing.

Now we learn that the Scottish Government has agreed to host the Games in Glasgow, thanks to a $200m payment from the same organisers (no prizes for guessing the origin of that cash!) – plus $4.5m from Australia’s Commonwealth Games Federation in money it also received as compensation.

And so the taxpayers of the state of Victoria have ended up funding a Commonwealth Games being held on the other side of the world.

Brisbane will be hosting the 2032 Olympics and Paralympics. That is a locked-in deal. There is no way we should give up on that opportunity.

Responsibility for election comment is taken by Chris Jones, corner of Mayne Rd & Campbell St, Bowen Hills, Qld 4006. Printed and published by NEWSQUEENSLAND (ACN 009 661 778). Contact details here