At Luke Russert’s college graduation, Tim Russert (1950-2008) joked about the fake ID used by his son during college to get into bars. Apparently the ID was quite good.
Laughter at Tim Russert’s recall was said to be widespread, and knowing. Most Americans entering bars for the first time at age 21 have endless stories of getting into drinking establishments before the legal age.
It’s hard not to think about the lived experience of most adults as Australia’s “Social Media Minimum Age Act” becomes law. As of December 10th, Aussies under the age of 16 no longer have access to their various social media accounts.
The legislation insults parents and children alike in pretending that the herculean challenges of childhood and parenting can somehow be legislated away. Watch as the problems politicians seek to erase with legislation continue to rear their ugly heads, albeit in worse fashion.
19th century political economist Frederic Bastiat understood this inevitability well. As he observed in The Law, “When law and morality contradict each other, the citizen has the cruel alternative of either losing his moral sense or losing his respect for the law.”
Applying Bastiat’s common sense to the Social Media Minimum Age Act, the imposition of the legislation won’t sap the desire among younger Aussies to utilize and participate in social media. Which is another way of saying that markets don’t disappear just because governments decree their disappearance. Instead, they continue to exist alongside falling respect for the law. Only for the story to get worse.
To see why, it must be understood that with the accounts of the pre-16s in Australia no longer active, parents will no longer be able to supervise what their kids see and do on social media. So, while pre-16 usage of social media in Australia has been made illegal, what animates the lives of children a little or a lot will still be accessible. Which is a quick way of saying that pre-16s will continue to use social media, but by signing up for new accounts with fake names, fake birthdates, fake faces, and all sorts of innovative ways to get around the law.
It in a sense recalls China, and efforts to whitewash reality. As New Yorker staff writer Evan Osnos observed in his 2014 book about life there, Age of Ambition (my review here), “the internet had long ago exceeded” what China’s censors could handle such that “words were being expressed first and censored second.” Applying all of this to social media sites such as Facebook, YouTube and X that are blocked in China, it’s a known quantity there that anyone with reasonable computer knowledge can work around the bans. Visitors and citizens can similarly outmaneuver the rules with VPNs (virtual private networks) that disguise location.
Thought of with Australian kids top of mind, that they grew up with technology means they’re best equipped to flout the Social Media Minimum Age Act with ease. As a Washington Post editorial put it in words that channeled Bastiat, “One problem with unenforceable laws is they encourage young people to break them – and not take other laws seriously.” Well, yes.
It’s a long way of saying that the market for pre-16 use of social media in Australia will still be vibrant, and by extension so will usage be. The difference is that kids will use social media in the proverbial shadows in all too many instances, and without parental supervision. Bastiat warned Australian lawmakers, and he warns all of us.
Originally posted to Real Clear Markets.
