As Social Media Restrictions Spread, Is The Internet Entering Its Victorian Era?

from the brushing-up-on-our-history dept

A wave of proposed social media bans for young people has swept the globe recently, fuelled by mounting concern about the apparent harm the likes of TikTok, Instagram and Snapchat can cause to vulnerable minds.

Australia was the first to announce restrictions on people under 16 having a social media account. New Zealand may soon follow, and Denmark’s prime minister recently declared her country would ban social media for under-15s, accusing mobile phones and social networks of “stealing our children’s childhood”.

The moves are part of a growing international trend: the United Kingdom, France, NorwayPakistan and the United States are now considering or implementing similar restrictions, often requiring parental consent or digital ID verification.

At first glance, these policies appear to be about protecting young people from mental health harm, explicit content and addictive design. But beneath the language of safety lies something else: a shift in cultural values.

The bans reflect a kind of moral turn, one that risks reviving conservative notions that predate the internet. Might we be entering a new Victorian era of the internet, where the digital lives of young people are reshaped not just by regulation but by a reassertion of moral control?

Policing moral decline

The Victorian era was marked by rigid social codes, modest dress and formal communication. Public behaviour was tightly regulated, and schools were seen as key sites for socialising children into gender and class hierarchies.

Today, we see echoes of this in the way “digital wellness” is framed. Screen-time apps, detox retreats and “dumb” phones are marketed as tools for cultivating a “healthy” digital life – often with moral undertones. The ideal user is calm, focused and restrained. The impulsive, distracted or emotionally expressive user is pathologised.

This framing is especially evident in the work of Jonathan Haidt, psychologist and author of The Anxious Generation, a central text in the age-restriction movement. Haidt argues that social media accelerates performative behaviour and emotional dysregulation in young people.

Viewed this way, youth digital life involves declining psychological resilience, rising polarisation and the erosion of shared civic values, rather than being a symptom of complex developmental or technological shifts. This has helped popularise the idea that social media is not just harmful but corrupting.

Yet the data behind these claims is contested. Critics have pointed out that Haidt’s conclusions often rely on correlational studies and selective interpretations.

For example, while some research links heavy social media use to anxiety and depression, other studies suggest the effects are modest and vary widely depending on context, platform and individual differences.

What’s missing from much of the debate is a recognition of young people’s agency, or their ability to navigate online spaces intelligently, creatively and socially.

Indeed, youth digital life is not just about passive consumption. It’s a site of literacy, expression and connection. Platforms such as TikTok and YouTube have fostered a renaissance of oral and visual communication.

Young people stitch together memes, remix videos and engage in rapid-fire editing to produce new forms of storytelling. These are not signs of decline but evolving literacies. To regulate youth access without acknowledging these skills risks suppressing the new in favour of preserving the familiar.

Regulate platforms, not young people

This is where the Victorian metaphor becomes useful. Just as Victorian norms sought to maintain a particular social order, today’s age restrictions risk enforcing a narrow vision of what digital life should look like.

On the surface, terms such as “brain rot” appear to convey the harm of excessive internet use. But in practice, they’re often used by teenagers to laugh about and resist the pressures of 24/7 hustle culture.

But concerns about young people’s digital habits seem rooted in a fear of cognitive difference – the idea that some users are too impulsive, too irrational, too deviant.

Young people are often cast as unable to communicate properly, hiding behind screens, avoiding phone calls. But these changing habits reflect broader shifts in how we relate to technology. The expectation to be always available, always responsive, ties us to our devices in ways that make switching off genuinely difficult.

Age restrictions may address some symptoms, but they don’t tackle the underlying design of platforms that are built to keep us scrolling, sharing and generating data.

If society and governments are serious about protecting young people, perhaps the better strategy is to regulate the digital platforms. Legal scholar Eric Goldman calls the age-restriction approach a “segregate and suppress” strategy – one that punishes youth rather than holding platforms accountable.

We would never ban children from playgrounds, but we do expect those spaces to be safe. Where are the safety barriers for digital spaces? Where is the duty of care from digital platforms?

The popularity of social media bans suggests a resurgence of conservative values in our digital lives. But protection should not come at the cost of autonomy, creativity or expression.

For many, the internet has become a moral battleground where values around attention, communication and identity are fiercely contested. But it is also a social infrastructure, one that young people are already shaping through new literacies and forms of expression.

Shielding them from it risks suppressing the very skills and voices that could help us build a better digital future.

Alex Beattie is a Lecturer, Media and Communication at Te Herenga Waka — Victoria University of Wellington. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Filed Under: , , , , , , ,

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “As Social Media Restrictions Spread, Is The Internet Entering Its Victorian Era?”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
29 Comments
Anonymous Coward says:

Re:

In my view, it might well be school that’s “stealing our children’s childhood” and causing anxiety and depression. At least that’s how it was for me, and the 1990s web was my escape from that.

But I’m pretty sure it’s not just me. Nightmares about school (such as being unprepared for tests) are frequently listed as one of the most common types, and can continue for years after getting out. It’s traumatic, and realizing that it’d continue for longer than I’d been alive was really fucking depressing.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re:

For many people in the 90s, the escape came from such things as TV, video games, science-fiction books or movies, collecting, listening to music. For other, it was skateboard, biking, roller. Very few were doing hard drugs.
But for 90s kids’ parents, it was only about TV and video games. It was the absolute evil, even if many kids weren’t doing so on daily basis.
It’s pretty much the same today, social networks, or even web, is not the only kids occupation. It could be problematic if a child spent ten hours a day on it, but it means he really want to escape from the real world, from its miserable life.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:

Very few were doing hard drugs. But for 90s kids’ parents, it was only about TV and video games.

No; society was still very much freaking out about drugs in the 1990s, and about “harmful” music. Even if the drugs weren’t actually common, and the “explicit lyrics” stickers only made us want the music more.

Arianity (profile) says:

Re:

It seems just as likely that depressed young people turn to the Internet for help.

There are ways to control for that confounding variables like that. Correlation alone can’t prove causation, but it’s not nothing, either. It’s still used towards inferring causality when combined with other restrictions.

That said, there are a few studies at this point explicitly looking for and finding causality. They’re just way way harder to do than correlational studies, so they’re few and far between.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re:

There are ways to control for that confounding variables like that.

But can we control for not having really looked for anxiety or depression in the pre-smartphone days? A lot of what may be diagnosed as a disorder now, was considered kind of normal back then. People would dismiss concerns by saying things like “life’s not fair” (often while actively working against fairness), or by noting that other people had to deal with such problems too.

Daydream says:

Personally, I think we do need to protect children and other at-risk people online. Hate, propaganda, scams, AI hallucinations, all of these are a threat to unprepared innocents. But training people to cough up their personal details on demand is going so far in the wrong direction it’s not funny.

I think if we want to protect people on the internet, we need to actually put in the effort. Build all-ages welcoming online environments, work together to construct fact-checked encyclopedias and tutorials, build an online library of high quality or historically noteworthy literature, movies, games…not just slap a ‘no kids allowed’ patch over the internet and expect that to do the job.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Anonymous Coward says:

We would never ban children from playgrounds

Don’t give them any ideas. Playgrounds are places where one can meet children who are LGBT, who are from a different ethic background, and who have different beliefs. If they ever get suspicious that kids are broadening their horizons on playgrounds, they’ll whip up a stranger danger panic and ban them in no time.

Anonymous Coward says:

It’s a misnomer that the Victorians were prudish.

Evidence suggests that they were not. The Victorians, for example, were early developers of what is now called “BDSM culture”, and were known to get genitalia piercings.

They also developed sexual ‘torture’ devices that they claimed came from the medieval era, such chastity belts. These devices actually were Victorian.

However the generation AFTER the Victorians were prudes.

Anonymous Coward says:

The crux of the issue is that, if this was about making sure platforms were behaving, as it were, demanding they track their users is not how anybody would reasonably go about doing so. If I’m wary of how you handle data, I am not going to ask you to handle More data – but that’s exactly the framing and outcome of these laws.

I’m not saying that legislation like the DSA is perfect, but that it at least “makes sense” in regards to trying to put padding on the playing field, however poorly. Demanding everybody’s papers only makes sense if the intent is to track individual users rather than whether they’re an adult or not, for the same reason ‘input your birthday’ barriers and ‘are you an adult’ have only ever tried to ensure the important part, namely your age.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re:

Though just to play devil’s advocate for a second, those methods clearly don’t work. Anyone whose grown up with the internet and encountered an “Are you an adult/18?” barrier has likely lied to get in so clearly that’s not working.

In my opinion there’s no real way to solve this paradox that DOESN’T involve some level of verification all of which are problematic to various degrees (I often refer back to Schneier On Security’s article about data as a toxic asset) and involve giving companies access to sensitive data but there’s no real way to square the circle.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

bobqoq says:

where are the parents?

And where are the parents in this? Phones and other electronic devices don’t just spontaneously appear in the hands of children and teens.

Instead of using legislation to parent they should provide resources to parents. Maybe better pay so that parents aren’t required to be gone from the home all the time working. Maybe free healthcare so that time and money can go towards spending time with their kids instead of paying off crippling debt. Maybe free income while children are younger so that at least one of the parents can be home full time each day.

Educate the parents like free classes for parents on how to manage devices and networks at home. Free classes on how to be better parents and have communication. More resources for people that raise neurodivergent children.

To truly protect kids you need strong families.

Arianity (profile) says:

We would never ban children from playgrounds, but we do expect those spaces to be safe. Where are the safety barriers for digital spaces? Where is the duty of care from digital platforms?

A Techdirt article advocating for regulation and duty of care- is it raining cats and dogs? Jokes aside, there’s two issues:

One, while the exact bar varies, the bar for regulating something used by adults is much higher, even if it has negative impacts.

Second, as you briefly alluded to, while don’t ban children from children’s playgrounds, there are places that are age restricted. While kids do have some level of agency, it is not the same as an adult, and varies with age. Policy will reflect that.

Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re:

Thirdly, the burden for raising a child falls upon the child’s parent(s). The government can take some action to help prevent children from being harmed, but it shouldn’t be trying to parent every child in the nation as if they’re all the same person.

Fourthly, intent and impact are not the same. An attempt to regulate social media could backfire spectacularly in any number of ways. The Devil paves the roads of Hell with the best intentions of Man, and Man is ever willing to provide those bricks with bad decisions made with good intentions that end in worse outcomes.

Any regulation should be carefully considered from both short-term and long-term perspectives. For that matter, social media should’ve been thought about the same way. Humanity was not ready for the kind of connection that services like Facebook and Twitter gave the world; we might never be ready for that. But that should give us pause to consider how we regulate social media: Can we destroy what’s bad without taking out what’s good or must we take out what’s good to destroy what’s bad?

Arianity (profile) says:

Re: Re:

the burden for raising a child falls upon the child’s parent(s). The government can take some action to help prevent children from being harmed, but it shouldn’t be trying to parent every child in the nation as if they’re all the same person.

That is a hurdle, although where people land on it will be pretty divided depending on where they fall on the spectrum from nanny-state liberal to libertarian.

And it depends a lot on the specifics. OP didn’t give any specifics, but there’s a lot of room to e.g. mandate options. That can help without requiring a specific parenting style

Anonymous Coward says:

No it’s worse than that we are entering the era of mass surveillance beyond the dreams of 1984 Every user will have to send personal id to any website that’s not pg rated ,want to read the news or reddit or join discord
Send us your id passport not that most websites have the tech cability to store user data safely
Or protect it from hackers

The online safety act in the UK was supposed to stop kids from viewing porn or violent videos it expanded to cover 98 per cent of websites
The government body charged with enforcing it is now asking 4chan to pay a large fine even though it’s not based in the UK or is not subject to UK law because it does not collect Id from UK users or screen younger users in the UK

The problem with screening young users is it involves collecting
ID personal data on all users including adults and collecting data which may vunerable to hackers
And similar laws are being drawn up in USA states and Australia

Yes you can get around this with a vpn but this is not an ideal solution the whole principal of the open internet is at risk

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Subscribe to Our Newsletter

Get all our posts in your inbox with the Techdirt Daily Newsletter!

We don’t spam. Read our privacy policy for more info.

Ctrl-Alt-Speech

A weekly news podcast from
Mike Masnick & Ben Whitelaw

Subscribe now to Ctrl-Alt-Speech »
Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...
Loading...