As the age of technology goes on, more people will be exposed to technology from a younger age. My generation (Generation Z, anyone born between 1996 and 2012) saw the inception and rise of platforms like Facebook, Snapchat, Instagram, Twitter and YouTube. We thought little about children using social media; unless your parents outright restricted you from using it you could easily put a fake age on your profile and carry on messaging your friends. You could talk to someone twice your age on Kik, or look at explicit imagery on Tumblr. We weren’t quite Internet Latchkey Kids, but from what I remember it was a much more lawless age.
Obviously, this model had its flaws. Cyberbullying has been an issue since the beginning of the internet. Many of my generation were exposed to explicit content before they were at an appropriate age, whether this came from a grooming adult or an innocent search result. There is also the inherent damage done by social media platforms like Facebook or Instagram, which many argue encourage users to present an idealized version of themselves.
The solution up to now has been obvious: just don’t let your kids use social media until they’re old enough to handle it. Social media is, to an extent, a luxury: nobody needs a social media account, unless they are trying to get hired at a company which scrutinizes potential employees’ social media accounts (a practice I find equally understandable and sketchy).
Generations X through Millennial seemed to do just fine with not having the entire world at their fingertips; the only “damage” being the occasional technological ineptitude. (For example: My Gen X parents never clear their phone notifications. Ever. If you are Gen X and you are reading this please clear your notifications. Your phone will thank you and run much better.)
I’m not saying there are no benefits to having social media accounts. I have learned things about the world and its cultures that someone 100 years ago would never think of. I’ve made friends from across the globe. But there is validity to the thought train that we should treat social media like junk food: a wonderful invention, and good in controlled doses, but toxic at high volumes.
If this is all reasonable and agreeable, then why have we seen companies like YouTube and Instagram developing versions of their platforms specifically for children?
Let me answer that question with some more questions: What is the most impressionable demographic you could possibly have as a salesperson? How often do you see advertisements on YouTube and Instagram? How well do you remember the ads you saw on TV when you were a child?
You can probably see where I’m going with this. Sitting your child down with YouTube Kids for hours on end or allowing your preteens to use Instagram Kids exposes them to advertisements on a large scale. While there are laws about advertising to children, and YouTube Kids primarily has ads for YouTube Red, getting children used to being bombarded with ads from a young age seems pretty dystopian. You can imagine how bad the ads would be on Instagram Kids.
The platforms obviously will have further drawbacks. YouTube Kids, for example, has faced issues with content marked for children that contains disturbing imagery (for example, “Elsagate”). Though the development of Instagram Kids was paused last week, I have my suspicions it would have been any better: after all, if children can lie about their age to use regular Instagram, what’s to stop adults from lying about their age to use Instagram Kids?
One more thing to think about: Even if these platforms were perfect, would kids in the demographic actually use them? What’s the point of YouTube Kids if the kids are going to get bored of the restricted content and go back to using regular YouTube? I asked my youngest brother, who is 11, for his thoughts.
“Have you ever used YouTube Kids?” I asked.
“No,” he said. “It sucks. I don’t think I will ever use it ever.”
Categories: Opinion
Leave a Reply