Australia is stepping into uncharted territory with its bold move to ban social media accounts for kids under 16. As tempting as it is to cheer a policy aimed at protecting children’s mental health, there’s a lurking feeling that this grandiose attempt is doomed to fail from the get-go. When parents and politicians need to institute a government mandate to get control over their children, it shines a light on just how out-of-touch liberal policies have left them.
This policy supposedly grants children a “childhood” and offers parents “peace of mind.” But the reality is, without parental involvement, even the strongest of laws can’t stop kids from finding ways to outsmart the system. Youngsters are reportedly using all sorts of crafty tactics to dodge the ban — facial disguises, age misinformation, VPN trickery. When it comes right down to it, human ingenuity, especially youthful determination, often outpaces bureaucratic decrees.
Australia’s government argues it’s making strides against an epidemic of anxiety and depression among teens. But perhaps the better question is: why did we let it get this far in the first place? Could it be the liberal ideologies that pushed for unfettered access to technology without heed for its social consequences? The smartphone revolution wasn’t just an era of innovation, it was a Pandora’s Box of digital dependency that left parents and their children vulnerable to an onslaught of mental health crises.
Moreover, this move seems more like a showy act of global virtue signaling than an actionable solution. If Australia can do it, others might be tempted to follow. But the developing world doesn’t need more examples of “nanny state” overreach. The way forward is empowering parents and communities, not government overregulation. Real change comes from the ground up — from families taking back control of their homes and their children’s lives.
As we’ve seen time and time again, when society entrusts the well-being of children to governmental overseers instead of parents, it rarely ends well. With complex loopholes and gray areas aplenty, one has to wonder: is this really about protecting children or is it another flashy bid to distract from the real failures of social policies gone awry?
Source: Site
Leave a Reply