With this radical decision, Australia is fueling the debate these days: is it correct the decision of the government of that country, supported by law, to prohibit minors under 16 years of age from using social networkspromoting sanctions and fines for those who violate the measure? The debate not only divides generations, but also those who believe that prohibiting does not work, which only delays access to digital life and even increases the desire of a generation that is already plagued by anxiety.
Others consider that adolescents cannot be left alone and without control in a digital world that has become hostile. and, in many cases, it is the cause of their anguish and emotional health crises; facing platforms that were designed to be addictive by manipulating the dopamine, pleasure and reward circuit in the children’s brain. In the middle, there are those who are surprised by such a radical measure, who are convinced that the best thing is to educate and train adolescents in digital citizenship, and also those who agree with the proposal, but who say they do not even know how to get themselves off their cell phones.
In Australia, tomorrow the ban on networks for children under 16 will be a fact. The measure comes with a lot of controversy and as correlate of another previous one: prohibiting the use of cell phones in schools at all levels, a public policy only replicated at the national level by Chile. In other countries, including Argentina, there are district initiatives in this regard, for example, in the city of Buenos Aires.
Could something like this be implemented in Argentina? THE NATION He consulted the Ministry of Education headed by Carlos Torrendell about whether making a decision similar to that of Australia at the national level was being evaluated, but so far there have been no responses.
Regarding the restriction of cell phone use in classrooms, it was actually private schools that took the first step. At least 30 institutions in the Capital and the northern corridor of the suburbs – from Belgrano, Recoleta, Palermo, Núñez, San Isidro, San Fernando and Pilar, among others – were pioneers: they announced to parents before the start of the 2024 cycle that cell phones would not be allowed in either primary or secondary school. The measure had enormous repercussions and parents, far from opposing, applauded and many confessed that they did not know how to help their children get away from the phone and limit the number of hours on networks. Some time later, the decision of the Buenos Aires government came.
One of those schools was Los Molinos, a bilingual establishment in Munro. “Just a few months later, we saw the results: we recovered recesses, the soccer and rugby championships returned, the real trick games, the talks and the laughter,” said Mario Acorsi, director, after the first months. “The fact that the children did not use the phones for almost eight hours was very good for everyone, also for the families. The impact had stages: the first stage brought a certain calm, but then behavioral problems typical of face-to-face relationships appeared, a product of socialization, which are necessary for training, learning to live with others. The use of the cell phone made the friction invisible and we could not guide them on how to resolve conflicts. Now everything is more evident,” says Accorsi.
At the same time, for some time a group of parents from the Bede’s school in Garín had been following the American psychologist Jonathan Haidt, who published his book in February 2024 The anxious generation (The anxious generation). Would it be true that cell phone use and the consequent access to social networks are behind the epidemic of psychological disorders among adolescents? Haidt postulates that those who began their adolescence in the years in which access to cell phones with 24/7 connectivity became widespread, became a generation without tolerance for frustration, with constant mood problems, anxiety crises and inability to get bored, almost always looking at the world as what appears above their cell phone screen. And he made a clear proposal: no smart phones before the age of 14 and no social networks until the age of 16, two key ideas in the measures adopted in Australia.
What if we postpone the age of the first phone? What if we give them one that does not have access to the internet or networks, that only works for talking and sending SMS? That was the proposal of two British mothers, who launched a movement that in a matter of hours had gone viral: reaching an agreement between parents to change the social norm regarding when their children join the world of cell phones. They were called Smartphone Free Childhood and in Argentina the parents of Bede’s called it Hands Free. After a year and a half, the experiences are varied. Not everything is as romantic as at the beginning and the challenges are very great. And there are many parents and teachers who point out that it is not easy to change the usage pattern of the generation that already has digital socialization incorporated, but they have faith that the new generation will have a different socialization.
Today, parents who continue with this initiative put together a platform that allows parents to sign an agreement to commit to not giving their children a cell phone until they are 14 and not giving them access to networks until they are 16. This is recorded and allows parents from the same school who agree to be grouped together. “We echoed the ban on the use of Australian networks and from our networks we adhered to the measure. We support and maintain that this is the way. This movement to which we belong comes from Australia and the United Kingdom, we agree that there must be an agreement between parents and that we cannot wait for the laws to appear; Until this happens, there have to be these measures. The parents of our community celebrate it and are eager to see if this happens here. We need this to happen,” said Lucila Galápagos, one of the mothers at Bede’s, an organizer of Manos Libres. “We are promoting signature campaigns to get a law passed. Meanwhile, we want companies to be fined if they do not guarantee that minors do not have access. Today it is prohibited for children under 13 to have networks and platforms, but that does not happen. We need to be aware of the consequences for children,” he adds.
Roxana Morduchowicz is a specialist in digital citizenship and a Unesco consultant on adolescence and digital life. “Although networks pose risks, prohibiting their access to adolescents does not necessarily protect them. On the contrary, it could push them towards other spaces on the Internet, darker and without any type of regulation, which even pose a greater risk for them. The prohibition can generate an effect opposite to that intended: that adolescents experience greater vulnerability when they use them, precisely because they will not know how to respond to the risks that may arise. It is very difficult teach about thoughtful and appropriate uses of social networks, if adolescents do not have access to them,” he says. And he adds: “The ban ignores the opportunities that networks offer adolescents to learn, to connect, to communicate, to participate and to express themselves with their own voice. Furthermore, this decision excludes young people themselves from this debate.”
Much more useful, the specialist points out, would be to teach how to use them appropriately and thoughtfully. “A public policy focused on prohibition does not allow us to assume the responsibility of teaching about technologies and their possible risks. With them, and not without them. We are talking about training in digital citizenship that allows them to think critically and ethically,” he proposes.
Sofía G. is 16 years old, lives in Villa del Parque and when she found out about the measure in Australia she was filled with questions: “Why? And what about the profile of those under 16, does it disappear? I don’t agree at all. At school we talk a lot about the issue of cell phones and networks; we all agree that we have to learn to not get caught up so much and do real things, meet up, go out. But what those who prohibit it don’t understand is that our friends are there, we see each other there, we talkwe are in contact with those people that you don’t see as much, and it is part of our way of being and relating. If I have a cousin in Australia, don’t I see him again until I’m 16? It’s ridiculous”, he comments.
Accorsi agrees on the impact on the socialization of adolescents. “Children have a virtual life and a real life. It depends on the social environment, the temperament and the possibilities of each child. The social network often becomes that network of socialization and interaction with peers, of containment and bonding that does not occur in the realm of reality, which perhaps generates perverse dynamics, which conspire against human socialization, but I think that by restricting we should provide an alternative. And today real life was reconfigured based on virtual life. What happens to those kids if you suddenly take away their social environment? Are they prepared to reconnect?” he asks.
Tili Peña is a psychologist and creator of the TANConectados space, where she teaches workshops for teenagers in schools about digital life. “The measure in Australia points to a real concern: the mental health of girls, boys and adolescents exposed to the risks of social networks. Many of these risks have already been proven and have a negative impact on the mental and physical health of children. Banning is not the complete solution, although it is fulfills a function: raises awareness among those who were uninformed and acts as a powerful alert about a problem that is often underestimated. In that sense, I see it positive. As with alcohol, knowing that it is legal from the age of 18 to many parents gives them concrete support when they want to tell their children not to drink or, at least, stretch it as far as possible,” he describes.
“But It cannot be the only strategy nor the priority. If a child is not taught to use networks responsibly, critically and safely, they will reach 16 with the same risks they had at 12. It is essential to work on digital education. Without that perspective, any prohibition remains incomplete,” he concludes.
“There is an increasingly widespread trend that sees social networks not only as a space for interaction, but also as a device with addictive effects, sustained by algorithms capable of influencing, conditioning and preying on the attention of children and young people, with consequences that we are only beginning to measure. In Argentina we owe ourselves a serious, deep and evidence-based debateas far as possible from current political or ideological positions,” says Martín Zurita, executive secretary of the Association of Private Educational Institutions of Argentina (Aiepa). “This debate must necessarily include the role of the adult in the parenting processes. It is not enough to discuss prohibitions if the adults themselves do not accompany, do not establish limits or even blur them with their own practices. It’s not just about allowing or banning social networks: it’s about review the cultural paradigm that naturalizes immediate gratification, permanent exposure and the culture of instant success. That is one of the most important challenges,” he continues.
In the school environment, the impact is evident, he maintains. “The cell phone and social networks are, at the same time, factors of disruption and sources of conflict inside and outside of school. It is true that without social networks many of these conflicts would decrease, but it is also true that the school would lose valuable opportunities to work, educate and accompany students in the management of those same conflicts, which will inevitably reappear throughout their lives,” he concludes.