Nik Nanos is the chief data scientist at Nanos Research, an executive fellow at the University of Calgary’s School of Public Policy and is the official pollster for The Globe and Mail and CTV News.
Olivia Konar holds a banner with names of young people who advocates say died as a result of social media outside the Ronald V. Dellums Federal Building and U.S. Courthouse in Oakland, Calif., on Aug. 18.Noah Berger/The Associated Press
Seventeen billion dollars – that’s the settlement of a major lawsuit in the United States that accused Meta of harming children’s mental health and using addictive features. That settlement speaks to one key reality: people are no longer debating whether social media poses risks for children. They are debating whether governments and platforms can design restrictions that reduce harms without creating new ones.
The US$17-billion settlement is likely just the harbinger of a broader discussion on the future of social media and its potential harm to individuals and society more broadly.
Meta to pay $17-billion to settle social-media harms lawsuit, add stronger child-safety measures
A new study by Nanos Research suggests that Canadians are hitting a tipping point on youth social media regulation. Three in four Canadians say Canada should definitely (51 per cent) or maybe (26 per cent) consider restricting or banning social media use for those under the age of 16. Only one in five say Canada should definitely not (10 per cent) or probably not (11 per cent) consider a restriction or ban. Surprisingly, two out of three young Canadians between 18 and 34 years of age say the government should definitely (47 per cent) or maybe (20 per cent) consider a ban or restriction.
Sentiment in Canada about social media are not driven by worries about distractions or screen time, it’s about online sexual exploitation/grooming (52 per cent of Canadians are concerned) or cyber bullying/harassment (45 per cent of Canadians are concerned). These surpass worries about the impact of social media on mental health issues like anxiety and depression (39 per cent concerned).
In a parallel study conducted by the National Opinion Research Centre (NORC) at the University of Chicago, a similar majority of Americans thought the U.S. should definitely (40 per cent) or maybe (33 per cent) consider a ban or restriction.
While Americans are more likely to be worried about mental health and online sexual exploitation than Canadians (65 per cent of Americans are concerned), Canadians are comparatively more likely to be concerned about addictive or manipulative platform design (38 per cent worry in Canada, 20 per cent in the U.S.) or exposure to harmful ideological content (37 per cent vs. 18 per cent). Also, Canadians are more likely to be worried about kids being exposed to hateful, racist or violent content compared to Americans. Asked about the pressures of body image content, Americans were more likely to be concerned (30 per cent) than Canadians (16 per cent).
Awareness of the issue of social-media harm was higher in Canada than the U.S. at the time of the studies. About eight in 10 Canadians say they have heard a lot (35 per cent) or some (47 per cent) about it, compared to one in two Americans (10 per cent heard a lot, 43 per cent heard some). Readers should note that both studies were conducted before the Meta settlement.
The Decibel: Canada’s first steps toward a social media ban
Still, even though the majority are worried, Canadians clearly see downsides to restricting or banning social media use for children or teens. At the top of the list of possible downsides is the view that kids will turn to less trustworthy or harder to monitor websites and apps (31 per cent very concerned, 44 per cent somewhat concerned). Likewise, a majority of adult Canadians believe it will be difficult to enforce restrictions fairly or consistently (29 per cent very concerned, 42 per cent somewhat concerned). Respondents are much less worried about the impact social media restrictions or a ban would have on the ability of young people to interact with peers, digital literacy, isolation or the ability to access to supportive online communities.
On the implications of a ban or restrictions, Canadians are pretty well split on the difficulty for parents and caregivers to monitor online behaviour: 17 per cent are very concerned, 34 per cent somewhat concerned, 28 per cent not too concerned and 14 per cent not at all concerned. Other concerns mentioned by Canadians included the loss of privacy from age verification and the ability of children and teens to easily work around or evade possible restrictions.
The key takeaway is that support for action co-exists with skepticism about the implementation of restrictions or a complete social-media ban for children and teens.
The debate may very well be shifting from whether to act to how to act. Canadians have effectively reclassified social media as a child and teen safety issue rather than a technology or rights issue. Canadians are moving in a direction where the benefits of social media are no longer enough to ignore the potential harms to kids. The research suggests that Canadians are unconvinced social media is indispensable to healthy youth development.
The irony is that this may be a policy area where Canadians are both pro-regulation and anti-bureaucracy. On the one hand they are worried and want action. On the other hand they are skeptical about the government machinery to deal with online harms.
Opinion: Ban social media for young people? Good luck with that
The Meta settlement may ultimately be remembered not because of its size, but because it marks a turning point. Perhaps Canadians are reaching the same conclusions they came to on things like seatbelts and smoking. The debate is shifting from “if” people should be protected to “how” the protection should be implemented.
The next question may be whether adults also need protection from social media.
The real test is whether governments, parents and technology companies can protect a generation from social media’s harms without creating a new generation of unintended consequences.
