Course:ELEC300E/CaseStudies/SocialMediaBans
Context: Social Media Harms and Bans
| Social Media Bans |
|---|
 |
| Content / Topics |
| Grief Bots |
| AI Chatbots |
| AI Ethics |
| Relevant Analysis Strategies or Tools |
| Decision Impact Assessment |
| Plutchik's Wheel |
| Needs Analysis |
There is mounting concern around how social media impacts the mental health of adolescents and children. Social media has benefits, but it exposes us to toxic comment sections, cyberbullying, addictive scrolling, AI deepfakes, misinformation and harmful online communities. Research has suggested that prolonged use is linked to eating disorders, depression, anxiety and self harm.
In Canada, Bill-C34 ('Safe Social Media Act') was proposed in 2026 to address some of these problems:
Online harms are not only the result of individual behaviour. They are also shaped by how digital services are designed and operated. Features such as algorithmic recommendation systems, engagement-based feeds, autoplay, and endless scrolling can amplify harmful content and increase exposure, particularly for young users. The rapid development of AI has introduced additional challenges to the online environment. AI chatbots can interact directly and persistently with users, sometimes reinforcing harmful behaviours or providing unsafe responses in sensitive situations.
The bill outlines several new requirements for social media and AI chatbot services, to reduce harm to users.
The Digital Safety Act would establish new safety requirements for social media services and AI chatbot services. The Act requires these services to identify risks of harm on their platforms, adopt measures to address certain risks, implement safety-focused and age-appropriate design features, make user guidelines available, provide tools such as blocking and flagging, and submit publicly disclosed digital safety plans.
The most controversial aspect of Bill C-34 is that it introduces age restrictions, which would block users under the age of 16 from having social media accounts. If the bill is passed, Canada wouldn't be the first country to implement a social media age restriction: many countries around the world are developing similar policies, including Australia.
Case: Arguments over Bill C-34
Mei: I'm against the social media age limitations because of their privacy implications. Having age limits on social media platforms means that everyone (not just kids) will need to go through an age verification/estimation process, which might mean uploading IDs, photographs or other private information... and that makes me pretty uncomfortable. Whether the government handles this age verification process, or a third party, having so many people upload highly personal identification seems like a real security threat and opens the door to more widespread online surveillance.
Mary: I'm strongly against a social media ban. I'm fifteen years old, but that doesn't mean I don't have constitutional rights including a right to freedom of expression! Social media allows me to share my thoughts and opinions. I can't vote, and if this ban goes through, I won't even be able to engage in discussions online. This ban silences the young people who it is trying to help!
Also, the online communities that I am a part of are important to me. I socialize online, and social media is how I stay connected with my friends. I've had trouble making friends in person, and if I was cut off from social media I would feel really isolated. For me I think a social media ban would harm my mental health more than it would help it.
Ahmed: I'm definitely in favor of a social media ban for children. I have a young daughter, and I what I care about most is her mental health and well being. Social media platforms can be pretty toxic - from offensive comments to serious cyberbullying. I also don't want my daughter exposed to the misinformation or the harmful ideas that I see online.
Even as an adult, I find social media pretty addictive: I'll sit down with my phone and the next thing I know an hour has passed and I feel worse off than when I started scrolling. I hate to think how such addictive and overstimulating content impacts brains that are still developing.
Arthur: I'm not sure how I feel about the social media ban. I'll admit that social media hasn't been great for my mental health but I'm 18 years old now and I think I can navigate it in a healthy way.
I'm concerned that even though I'm 18 I might still be impacted. I've been told that I look young for my age and age estimation software has been shown to be especially inaccurate when it comes to people with my racial background. I'd be pretty angry if I was cut off from online communities because of my race!
Andrew: I'm wary of the social media ban. I'm not a huge fan of social media, but I do have a Facebook account that I use to communicate with my grandkids and friends from my desktop computer. I'll admit that digital skills aren't exactly my strong suit - I find it pretty difficult to navigate social media already. I think if I had to go through the whole rigamarole of doing age verification I'd give up on it completely: I don't have a camera, how am I supposed to upload all these pictures? How would I know if its a legitimate social media site asking for my ID or a hoax?
It would be a real pity to lose access to my account because of this. I don't know how I'd get in touch with my friends without Facebook.
Mike: To me, this ban seems like a real waste of time. You think a smart fifteen year old like me, who grew up with social media, isn't going to be able to get around a ban like that? Australia has a similar ban and most Australian teens are still on social media. Surely there is a better way of addressing the problems with social media - in a way that helps both teens and adults.
Recommended Readings
- 3 minute read, "Bill C34, the Safe Social Media Act", https://www.canada.ca/en/canadian-heritage/services/safe-social-media-act.html
- 10 minute listen (Optional - especially the first ten minutes) Globe and Mail interview with Micheal Geist https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F7Dknm4uxQ0&time_continue=1605&source_ve_path=MjM4NTE&embeds_referring_euri=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.michaelgeist.ca%2F
Discussion Questions
Here are a few questions to help you begin analyzing the issues discussed in this case study. The purpose of these questions is to prompt reflection and further consideration: there are no right or wrong answers!
- Emotional Responses: Which of the characters do you resonate with most? What emotions do they describe?
- Contradictory viewpoints and outcomes: The stakeholders described above have different perspectives on the issue of social media age restrictions. What are the key needs or values that inform their arguments? Are there any perspectives or arguments that you think are missing from the discussion?
- Positive action: What would you consider a positive outcome when it comes to Bill-C34. Are you in favor of the bill, against it, or do you think some adjustments are required?
- Interruptions and invitations: Advocates of Bill-C34 argue that it prevents social media companies from exploiting vulnerable populations, and holds them accountable when they cause harm. Critics might say that it creates new barriers for marginalized groups, and disempowers users. What do you think?
- Physical connections: Consider your personal experience with social media. How does it impacts your mental health, physical health and cognition?
- Social and Historical Context: Which groups are most vulnerable to harm as result of irresponsible social media platform design - or to the proposed policy changes? Does this relate to any other new stories that you have heard, or systemic inequities that you know of?
- Positive Practices: Along with age restrictions, Bill-C34 requires platforms to "implement safety-focused and age-appropriate design features". What is one safety-focused design feature that comes to mind? Can you think of any unintended negative consequences of this feature?