Insider Q&A: High hopes for Australia social media ban and channeling parental 'fury' over tech

Julie Scelfo started MAMA — Mothers Against Media Addiction — earlier this year to help parents fight back against the harms of social media on children. A former journalist, Scelfo says she was inspired to take action after reporting on the youth mental health crisis and how screens and social media are affecting young people’s lives.

The group has 28 chapters in 17 states, with waitlists to start other chapters. Scelfo says the group wants to establish chapters in every state, provide parent education about technology, “ensure the school day remains smart-phone-free for students and overcome the ”inertia in our state capitals and Congress so technology is safeguarded like other consumer products."

Scelfo spoke with The Associated Press recently about her work with MAMA, as well as a new Australian law banning children under 16 from using social media. The Q&A has been edited for length and clarity.

QUESTION: What are the biggest issues you hear from parents about technology, anything new that hasn’t been talked about as much?

I’m not sure it hasn’t been talked about, but what I hear the most from parents is that they are extremely stressed about the ubiquity of technology in their children’s lives and they don’t know what to do about it. Whether it’s the massive social pressure to get kids their own phones, or the fact that kindergartners are handed tablets on their first day of school, it can feel almost impossible for parents to do what they intrinsically know is better for their kids — which is to be outside in the world as much as possible and not parked in front of a screen. But parents cannot possibly bear the entire responsibility of keeping children off screens and keeping them safe online because the problems are baked into society and into the design of the products.

Parents and kids face a polycrisis — multiple crises happening at the same time which creates an effect even more devastating than each one would be individually. At a time when children should be building their social skills and attention span, they are increasingly interacting with the world through technology that can impede the development of both – and on platforms without adequate safeguards. Social media companies relentlessly target our kids with hidden algorithms that exploit their emotions for profit, and I don’t think there’s a real understanding of just how pervasive that exploitation is.

Q: Is Australia’s ban on social media for kids under 16 the right move by a government? Why/why not?

Australia’s social media ban for children under 16 puts the responsibility of compliance where it should be — on tech platforms, not parents. With more than half of teenagers spending nearly five hours a day on social media platforms and our heart-breaking national youth mental health crisis, it’s unconscionable that governments around the world, including here in the U.S., have failed to pass meaningful social media regulation since the days when AOL still distributed CD-ROMs by snail mail.

Much like the Kids Online Safety Act (KOSA) would do here in the U.S, Australia’s ban represents a crucial first break in the long-standing logjam on any type of internet regulation and I applaud Australia’s legislators and Prime Minister Albanese for having the courage to stand up to Big Tech.

Big Tech is personalizing content to pull our kids into a world where addiction, anxiety, and even depression are side effects. To keep them on the app longer, children are shown more and more extreme content, leveraging the mountains of data they are collecting on our kids, with no common-sense safeguards or basic protections every parent expects. They are making billions while having the nerve to say it’s the parents’ job to make their products safe for our kids? It’s time for governments to step in and force Beg Tech to take responsibility for the effects of their products. Big Tech has spent more than $51 million this year alone to prevent KOSA from passing.

Q: What are the reasons that teens should wait until 16 to be on social media?

A: Today’s youth spend nearly 9 hours on screens daily and it’s not healthy or safe for their hearts and minds. For example, Meta in September acknowledged taking action on 12 million pieces of suicide and self-harm content on Facebook and Instagram this year — just between April and June. Our kids’ compulsion to check their phones is exposing them to unsafe content and displacing critical, real-world experiences they need to properly develop socially, emotionally and academically.

Q: Won’t kids just get around the restrictions, as they always do?

A: Every other industry is safeguarded. From toys to food to buildings to cars, we have regulations in place to keep children safe. Why should social media products be any different? Kids may try to get around the restrictions — just like they do for alcohol, tobacco or drugs — but nobody is saying that because they try, we should give them unfettered access to them. Parents cannot possibly bear the entire responsibility of keeping children safe online, because the problems are baked into the design of the products, and so we need policies that hold Big Tech accountable for ensuring their products are safe.

Q: What is your ultimate goal with MAMA?

A: Just like Mothers Against Drunk Driving, the genesis of this movement is fury and anger at the injustice of young people being robbed of their lives just because they happen to be at the wrong place at the wrong time.

I want to direct that energy into cultural change — we can’t continue to tout the benefits of technology without having an open and real-time discussion about its significant, and widespread harms and without ensuring that powerful corporations, just like Big Tobacco, are forced to make their products as safe as possible for humans.

The ultimate goal for MAMA is to put tech products in their place: as powerful, and often helpful tools - but just a part of human life, not the center of it.