Not all screen time is equal: Wrestling with a YouTube ban for kids
Early on in my parenting journey a girlfriend sent a post that said, 'To say all screen time is the same is like saying all paper time is the same.' Or like saying that reading this masthead is the same quality of paper time as reading New Idea or opening a utility bill, or reading philosophy or folding origami.
It is obvious how ridiculous that argument is. Surely an 11-year-old reading The Day My Butt Exploded is not the same quality of paper time as reading Harry Potter. It is the same for screen time. Not all screen time is equal.
Psychologists and parenting experts have used analogies galore to explain this to parents, schools and governments. Like the nutritional pyramid, Jocelyn Brewer refers to 'Digital Nutrition' with the 'good screen time' at the bottom, where wholegrains are and the 'sometimes screen time' at the top with lollies and chocolate.
While YouTube does have some educational videos and helpful 'instructionals', it also has a lot of toxic video content. I'm talking about misogynistic content, violent content and young people doing really stupid stuff that our kids then try to replicate, and I mean more stupid than the Mentos in the Diet Coke bottle.
I am sceptical about the social media ban for under-16s, not because I am a great fan of social media for kids, but because I'm not confident it will work. If kids under 16 have figured out how to bypass Lime Bike rentals, you don't think they'll figure out how to use social media?
Loading
But if we are moving forward with a social media ban, and it looks like we are, then there are some things that will make it work. The first is Australian parents getting behind it. Prime Minister Anthony Albanese said the ban was designed so parents could say to their children social media is 'against the law'. That only works if we as parents don't succumb to the wiles of our children. Don't budge if Jonny or Susie are using it. Hold the line.
Currently, YouTube has been exempted from the ban. But the eSafety Commissioner, Julie Inman Grant, wants to change that.
Frankly, it would be farcical to ban social media but allow YouTube for under-16s. While it doesn't have the 'social' elements of other sites, it has the same dangerous content and misinformation. It would be like banning fast food but keeping McDonalds. To say that YouTube is somehow a better use of screen time than other social media apps such as Snapchat, TikTok or Instagram is nuts. So good on Inman Grant for pointing that out.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Sky News AU
2 hours ago
- Sky News AU
Prime Minister Anthony Albanese knew US would strike Iran but not when, Sky News Sunday Agenda can reveal
Prime Minister Anthony Albanese was aware the US was planning strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities but did not know the exact timing, Sky News Sunday Agenda can reveal. The US strikes hit key Iranian nuclear sites at Fordow, Natanz and Isfahan last weekend, before President Donald Trump declared a ceasefire between Israel and Iran. Mr Albanese then waited more than 24 hours to issue an explicit statement of support for the strikes, after initially calling for 'dialogue' and 'de-escalation'. It was not until after a meeting of the National Security Committee of Cabinet that Mr Albanese fronted the media and confirmed Australia backed the US action. Critics have seized on the delay as evidence of hesitancy and weakness in Canberra's alliance with Washington. Shadow defence minister Angus Taylor said the government was exhibiting 'anti-US alliance' sentiments, due to lacklustre support for the strikes. 'This was the right thing for the United States to do, Israel was entirely entitled to take action against Iran,' Mr Taylor told Sky News on Thursday. 'It was well within the rights of Israel to do what it did … the United States has played a very deft hand in the approach it's taken on this." Former prime ministers Scott Morrison and Tony Abbott also weighed in, arguing that Mr Albanese should have immediately and publicly endorsed the strike. 'If you're in the United States and you take an action like this… you'd want to know your allies were with you 100 per cent,' Mr Morrison said. Mr Albanese has defended the government's handling of the situation, noting that Australia is 'not a central player' in the Iran-Israel conflict. 'We run an orderly, stable government,' he told reporters, repeatedly declining to comment on intelligence matters. 'We are upfront, but we don't talk about intelligence, obviously. But we've made very clear this was unilateral action taken by the United States.' At the same time, the broader Australia–US relationship has come under renewed scrutiny, amid calls for the Albanese government to lift defence spending. The United States and NATO allies committed last week to increasing defence spending to five per cent of GDP by 2035. While Defence Minister Richard Marles attended the NATO summit, Mr Albanese stayed in Australia, declining to attend after rumours he may go in order to meet President Trump. Australia has committed to defence spending to 2.3 per cent of GDP - well below NATO's new target and the 3.5 per cent requested directly by US Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth. 'Well, we have increased our defence investment,' Mr Albanese said on Friday. 'What we're doing is making sure that Australia has the capability that we need - that's what we're investing in.' Government sources have privately expressed scepticism about the NATO targets, suggesting some countries inflate their defence figures by including roads and other infrastructure costs.
Sky News AU
2 hours ago
- Sky News AU
Prime Minister Anthony Albanese holds fire on defence spending amid doubts about NATO's five per cent promise
The Albanese government has pushed back on US and NATO defence spending targets, with sources suggesting the commitments are overblown. Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has so far dodged calls to increase defence investment after NATO promised to raise military spending to five per cent of economic outputs by 2035. NATO agreed to the significant uplift after many member countries had already failed to meet the previous two per cent target. Sources suggested to Sky News Sunday Agenda that some countries game their budget by including civilian projects, such as roads or bridges, to achieve the five per cent target. "We start with the capability. We don't start with the dollars," Home Affairs Minister Tony Burke told Sunday Agenda. "We make decisions on behalf of Australia's national interest... We have mature, decent, respectful conversations with the United States. "But as I say, the conversation doesn't start with the dollars at our end. It starts with the capability." White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt told reporters on Friday if NATO allies could 'do it', then US allies in the Asia-Pacific could as well. Speaking in Sydney on Friday, Mr Albanese was asked if he was worried about a potential backlash from President Donald Trump for not increasing the defence budget. 'What we're doing is making sure that Australia has the capability that we need - that's what we're investing in,' Mr Albanese told reporters. 'We'll continue to do that, invest in our capability and invest in our relationships … I have said very clearly, we will invest in the capability that Australia needs.' The Albanese government - noting that Australia is not a NATO member but closely allied with the organisation - has committed to a more modest target of 2.3 per cent by 2033. Mr Albanese has left the door open to increasing defence spending, but insists any decision will be based on national interest, not external pressure. The opposition, in contrast, has pledged to increase spending to three per cent, while US Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth has urged Defence Minister Richard Marles to reach 3.5 per cent. 'The real problem we've got at the moment is we're just way short of the mark,' shadow defence minister Angus Taylor told Sky News on Thursday. 'The government's own plan is not properly funded … it's there, and very clear that there needs to be significant additional funding.' The debate comes amid heightened global instability following US airstrikes on Iranian nuclear sites and a temporary ceasefire between Israel and Iran.
Sydney Morning Herald
5 hours ago
- Sydney Morning Herald
Not all screen time is equal: Wrestling with a YouTube ban for kids
Early on in my parenting journey a girlfriend sent a post that said, 'To say all screen time is the same is like saying all paper time is the same.' Or like saying that reading this masthead is the same quality of paper time as reading New Idea or opening a utility bill, or reading philosophy or folding origami. It is obvious how ridiculous that argument is. Surely an 11-year-old reading The Day My Butt Exploded is not the same quality of paper time as reading Harry Potter. It is the same for screen time. Not all screen time is equal. Psychologists and parenting experts have used analogies galore to explain this to parents, schools and governments. Like the nutritional pyramid, Jocelyn Brewer refers to 'Digital Nutrition' with the 'good screen time' at the bottom, where wholegrains are and the 'sometimes screen time' at the top with lollies and chocolate. While YouTube does have some educational videos and helpful 'instructionals', it also has a lot of toxic video content. I'm talking about misogynistic content, violent content and young people doing really stupid stuff that our kids then try to replicate, and I mean more stupid than the Mentos in the Diet Coke bottle. I am sceptical about the social media ban for under-16s, not because I am a great fan of social media for kids, but because I'm not confident it will work. If kids under 16 have figured out how to bypass Lime Bike rentals, you don't think they'll figure out how to use social media? Loading But if we are moving forward with a social media ban, and it looks like we are, then there are some things that will make it work. The first is Australian parents getting behind it. Prime Minister Anthony Albanese said the ban was designed so parents could say to their children social media is 'against the law'. That only works if we as parents don't succumb to the wiles of our children. Don't budge if Jonny or Susie are using it. Hold the line. Currently, YouTube has been exempted from the ban. But the eSafety Commissioner, Julie Inman Grant, wants to change that. Frankly, it would be farcical to ban social media but allow YouTube for under-16s. While it doesn't have the 'social' elements of other sites, it has the same dangerous content and misinformation. It would be like banning fast food but keeping McDonalds. To say that YouTube is somehow a better use of screen time than other social media apps such as Snapchat, TikTok or Instagram is nuts. So good on Inman Grant for pointing that out.
