Imagine a world where children grow up without the constant pull of social media algorithms dictating their every move. Sounds radical, right? But that’s exactly what South Australia is trying to achieve with its groundbreaking ban on social media for kids under 16. In a bold move that’s sparking global debate, Premier Peter Malinauskas sat down with CNN’s Jake Tapper to defend the decision, asking a simple yet provocative question: ‘What’s the worst thing that’s gonna happen by delaying kids’ access to social media?’ And this is the part most people miss—it’s not just about restricting access; it’s about protecting children from what Malinauskas calls the ‘addictive nature’ of these platforms.
In this exclusive interview, Tapper also spoke with Jonathan Haidt, a social psychologist and author of ‘The Anxious Generation: How the Great Rewiring of Childhood Is Causing an Epidemic of Mental Illness.’ Together, they unpacked the ban, which targets 10 major platforms—Instagram, Facebook, Threads, Snapchat, YouTube, TikTok, Kick, Reddit, Twitch, and X. While these platforms have agreed to comply using age verification technology, they’re skeptical it will make children safer. But here’s where it gets controversial: Malinauskas argues that social media’s algorithms are uniquely harmful, designed to monetize children’s data and attention. ‘It’s not just the internet,’ he clarified. ‘It’s the algorithms that keep them hooked.’
The ban, inspired by a South Australian draft law, isn’t set in stone. Malinauskas revealed that additional platforms could be added if they meet the criteria for harm. ‘Our legislation is flexible,’ he explained. ‘If a platform poses a risk, it can be banned.’ eSafety Commissioner Julie Inman Grant echoed this, noting that the list of banned sites is evolving as new platforms emerge.
Haidt didn’t hold back, labeling social media ‘the largest corporate destruction of human potential in history.’ He believes the ban will encourage kids to reconnect with real-world interactions, which are vital for mental health. But is this too idealistic? Critics argue that teens will simply find workarounds, like using VPNs, or migrate to unregulated platforms. Malinauskas admits the ban isn’t perfect but emphasizes its broader impact: ‘Thousands of kids now have more time, and parents feel empowered to have meaningful conversations with their children.’
Take, for instance, a story Malinauskas shared about a flight attendant whose daughter lost access to Snapchat. While she still used her phone, her screen time decreased significantly, and her mother noticed a marked improvement in their communication.
So, here’s the question for you: Is this ban a necessary step to protect children, or is it an overreach that ignores the realities of the digital age? Does restricting access to social media truly safeguard kids, or does it simply push them toward other, potentially more dangerous corners of the internet? Let’s hear your thoughts in the comments—this debate is far from over.
Watch the full interview with Premier Peter Malinauskas and Jonathan Haidt on CNN.com/Watch to dive deeper into this polarizing topic. And remember, this isn’t just Australia’s problem—it’s a global conversation we all need to be part of.
