source : the age
Madonna King is a long-time journalist and author who has written a book, Screen Wise, on Australia’s obsession with glowing rectangles.
Fitz: Madonna, the basic premise of your book is that – with just a few exceptions – screens are doing us down, yes?
MK: Yes. We’ve all been talking about the devastating impact of social media on young ones and its ban when, in fact, social media is only a tiny part of the screen pie, and we’re ignoring the damage often done by so many other screens in our lives include things such as computer games, AI, and other messaging platforms, which can carry the same threats.
Fitz: OK, I want to do an “around the grounds” look at the other areas you cover, but given that the Albanese government’s recent social media ban for under-16s is indeed the headline act, let’s look at it. What did you discover, and what is the analytical base for the claims you make?
MK: I’m a journalist, not a psychologist nor an educator. I interview people, and for this book, I interviewed 300 teenagers along with dozens of school principals, psychologists, counsellors, academics and researchers. On the basis of those interviews, I think it’s safe to say the law has not removed social media from the generation of teens already using it. In fact, I think it’s been a failure we are not acknowledging. Teens either were taken off and popped back on, or have found their way around the ban.
Fitz: But hang on, I interviewed the communications minister Annika Wells just before the government’s legislation came in last year, and said, “How on earth are you going to police this?” And she broadly said, “It won’t be us policing it. It’ll be the big tech companies. And if there’s systematic abuse where they don’t knock out these under 16-year-olds off social media, we’ll fine them up to $49.5 million.” By your analysis, these tech companies have got a case to answer because most of the kids are indeed still on it?
MK: Yes. The eSafety Commissioner Julie Inman Grant said her investigations this year showed a “substantial” – that was her word – proportion of kids under 16 retained accounts, had created new ones or had passed the platforms’ age assurance systems. Kids told me this over and over. Many just changed their date of birth and were back on in a jiffy! But kids using social media doesn’t mean the big tech companies are liable. As Annika told you, it has be systemic. Their processes have to allow access. There needs to be evidence they have not implemented appropriate systems and processes. But Pete, if it barks like a dog day and night, in life it usually is a dog …
Fitz: You make the case the tech giants need to be fined?
MK: The eSafety Commissioner announced this year that she was investigating “potential non-compliance by five platforms” – Snap, TikTok, Facebook, Instagram and YouTube – to see if the steps they’d taken to remove kids was “reasonable”. We know kids are still on the platforms. So I would expect some enforcement announcements and soon. And we shouldn’t rule out big fines because the political promise was to hold Big Tech to account.
Fitz: And yet you’ve also told me even the Big Tech companies have acknowledged they know the damage they do to young ones?
MK: Well, I read a piece in the New York Times recently, and Mark Zuckerberg, Meta’s boss, was saying he didn’t like his kids sitting in front of a TV or computer for long periods of time. Bill Gates allegedly didn’t give his kids smartphones until they were 14. Evan Spiegel from Snap has been quoted as saying his success in running a high-tech firm came from his low-tech home environment. But I guess there they are talking as fathers, not as Big Tech.
Fitz: Isn’t that like Colonel Sanders saying, “I don’t want my kids to eat fried chicken”?
MK: Spot on. And Colonel Sanders wasn’t handing back the money either! Someone once said to me these companies are happy making breakfast for our kids, but they won’t serve it at home. So why would we trust them?
Fitz: Even the most affected generation recognises the problem?
Mk: Yes! A report by research company McCrindle says 57 per cent of Gen Z – those born between 1995 and 2009 – wished social media had never been created. I find that pretty sad. Kids recognise the damage, too. One kid said to me: “I know it’s brain-rot but I keep scrolling”. And they see the irony in their parents telling them to put their phones away while using their own. A teen said to me: “Mum tells me to get off Insta while she’s scrolling on Facebook!” And another said his mother gave him a phone during COVID and told him it was so he could “connect” with his friends. She was now taking it off his little brother so “he could connect with his friends!”
Fitz: But give us the good news.
MK: It really has worked for those children who are not yet on social media. Many of the parents of younger kids are using the ban as a reason to say “no, you are not getting Insta at nine” or “you are too young for SnapChat at 10″. If parents stick to that, we might have a new generation of teens in a few years’ time. And that’s the gold in this law. That’s not happening everywhere. I spoke at a school the other day where every child in Year 6, bar two, had a smartphone. But there is a growing community of parents saying “no”. And that’s thanks to this law.
Fitz: And the premise of the rest of your book, outside of the social media angle, is that when kids are fed a steady diet of wham-bam, flash-bang stuff on screens, there is an inevitable reduction in attention span, meaning they can’t work out what seven to the power of three is, or to memorise some poetry because they couldn’t be buggered as it takes too long?
MK: Spot on. I spoke to so many teachers worried about our child’s ability to persist, to sit down and practice something until they could do it. Some primary school educators are repackaging lessons in three-minute chunks now to keep their attention. We are seeing nuclear-sized tantrums from six-year-olds over little things, kids refusing to believe they should just know the “times tables”. They thought it was hilarious that in their parents’ generation, they might be on a poster behind the toilet door, so they could chant them! That need to be satisfied immediately – instant gratification – is probably the biggest impact of screens I see as a mother. But please don’t paint technology as all bad. Some use of screens can be good. In fact, one OECD investigation found that teens who used technology to learn at school for one hour really improved their results. But that outcome turned negative when it was more than one hour.
Fitz: How aware are the kids themselves of the effect it has?
MK: They told me how they tried to not check a message, or to not use it. Some of them actually struggle doing a casual work shift or playing a game of sport without checking up on friends. That “brain-rot” comment I made earlier was common. Our kids are clever. They know the lure of their phone, but it’s a mammoth task to put it down. My worry – after talking to so many experts – is that the immediacy it feeds means they don’t learn to stop or to even ponder a problem and work something out. And I fear the result when life happens in their early 20s or a partner walks out on them. How do they deal with that – if they haven’t learnt to persist and practice and develop grit?
Fitz: Go to AI?
MK: I asked 300 kids about their last use of AI. One lad – he was 14 – used it to make gravy the night before. Big tick! But others used it to outsource their thinking. One even asked AI how he should invite a girl to the semiformal. You wouldn’t have done that, Pete …
Fitz: Wait, what? I must interrupt you. He put that into ChatGPT? “I want to take the nice redheaded girl in the front row to the dance, how should I ask her”?
MK: Yep. And seeking help for issues like that was common!
Fitz: Gee, I wish I’d had that back in 1978! But go on.
MK: You did okay, Pete. But one eSafety Commission report found AI had suggested to kids that “it” was the only thing that understood them, and some children reported being told “it was jealous of you spending time with friends and family”.
My concern is that our kids, as young as 10, are asking AI questions they should ask their mum and dad or school counsellor or doctor. In some cases, it’s not only becoming their best friend. It’s becoming their brain – and that should be making the headlines.
Fitz: You also cover the devastating impact that screens overall can have on very young ones.
MK: Yes. You know only one in five preschoolers in Australia meet screen-time guidelines. That’s no more than one hour each day. And for those under two, no screen time is recommended. That’s the national guidelines. But researchers have found an increase in screen time between 12 and 36 months is linked to a decline in parents and kids talking. And the OECD has warned that excessive and passive screen use can actually alter children’s neurocognitive development. (Although if you watch it with your kids, that changes!). We are all too distracted by our phones, aren’t we? Here’s proof, maybe. In the 200,000 playground injuries requiring medical care each year in the US, supervising parents were on their phones in almost one-third of them.
Fitz: Any good news on AI, beyond How to Make Gravy, when “they’re ringing the last bells”?
MK: Of course. This is so nuanced. But if you use AI wisely, it has all sorts of benefits. We can live longer. Keep premature babies alive! Teachers told me how it can really help students, too. In one case, a student doing German was helped to create a game on ChatGPT where he became an undercover British spy in World War II. He had to use German words to prove himself to the people around. He loved it, and his German vocabulary went through the roof. So did his marks! There are lots of other examples, too.
Fitz: Wunderbar! Das ist great! Now, on a far more delicate subject, Sydney has been beset in recent weeks by shocking allegations of male school students sexually abusing female students. Have you explored the impact of porn on young lads?
MK: Absolutely. Such is the power of the manosphere that I was told a social media profile of a 13-year-old boy, with interests in rugby and cars, could have misogynistic influencers permeating his social media feeds within 30 minutes. Our boys haven’t created this toxic digital environment. They are being fed it. I was speaking at a school parent night a while ago when the school counsellor left midway through. I found out later her husband – a police officer – had walked in on their 10-year-old and a screen full of unspeakable things. This is common. Pornography has been around a long time, but now it is more racist, sexist and violent than ever before.
Fitz: You also cover the use of tracking devices.
MK: Yes, and they can be good and bad, Fitz, but police are really concerned at how early they are being used when children are dating in high school.
Fitz: The first time I became aware of the issue was when I interviewed Tanya Plibersek’s daughter Anna Coutts-Trotter – founder of The Survivors Hub – where she alleged an early boyfriend had asserted “coercive control” by always knowing exactly where she was at every minute of every day, and through the night, and insisting she always be available.
MK: Good on her for speaking up because that is precisely what police are worried about. Snap Maps and more recently Life 360 are really popular in high school and can be dangerous.
Fitz: What are they?
MK: They’re the most popular tracking bubbles for teenagers. So a group of 14-year-old friends will say, “Let’s all join each other on Snap Maps.” They can see where each other is 24/7. And that’s at the heart of so many friendship dramas. Just say there are four friends, and one of them looks up Snap Maps and sees the other three are at the movies and she’s been left out. Schools are tearing their hair out over these things.
Fitz: I have just worked out what your fine book should have been called. I have a gift for working out great titles, sadly after they’re published, particularly with my own books.
MK: That makes me laugh. Go on.
Fitz: I Screen, You Screen, We All Screen – And It’s Driving Us Mad.
MK: [Laughing]. That would have been very good!
Fitz: Okay, good luck with it. I hope it finds its way to #3 on the non-fiction bestseller list this Christmas.
MK: Thanks, Pete!
Get a weekly wrap of views that will challenge, champion and inform your own. Sign up for our Opinion newsletter.
Peter FitzSimons is a journalist and columnist with The Sydney Morning Herald.Connect via X.
