President of the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen has recently called for a fixed age limit for children’s access to social media. But while the EU’s chief executive wants to block off the digital platforms with hard legal fences, the reality in Greenland paints a different picture.
The Greenlandic children’s rights institution, MIO, has mapped the digital habits of local young people in the report “Children’s use of the Internet and social media”. The conclusion stands in stark contrast to the global debate: the Greenlandic children have long since taken over the digital space. More than half of the 11-12-year-olds today have their own smartphone, and almost three out of four surf completely without adult supervision.
President of the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen has recently called for a fixed age limit for children’s access to social media. But while the EU’s chief executive wants to block off the digital platforms with hard legal fences, the reality in Greenland paints a different picture.
The Greenlandic children’s rights institution, MIO, has mapped the digital habits of local young people in the report “Children’s use of the Internet and social media”. The conclusion stands in stark contrast to the global debate: the Greenlandic children have long since taken over the digital space. More than half of the 11-12-year-olds today have their own smartphone, and almost three out of four surf completely without adult supervision.
Against this background, Sermitsiaq has asked MIO how they view similar legislation in Greenland. Because the question is whether a cold, legal age limit will have any effect at all in Greenlandic everyday life, where the children already manage their own online lives.
According to the Greenlandic children’s rights institution, it is precisely one of the very central knots that must be resolved. An age limit can never stand alone, says MIO.
– This is precisely one of the central challenges. Studies from both Denmark and other countries show that children are already very active online long before the official age limits. Therefore, an age limit cannot stand alone.
– If you choose to introduce an age limit, the focus should not only be on keeping children out of certain platforms, but also on making digital services safer for children through age-appropriate design, stronger privacy protection and greater responsibility on the part of the platforms. At the same time, it is important to recognize that children are not only users who must be protected, but also rights holders with the right to participation, information and community. Therefore, children themselves should be heard and involved in the development of the solutions, writes MIO in a written reply to Sermitsiaq.
No legislation can replace the presence of adults
Legislation is one thing, reality in homes is another. MIO’s report shows that half of the children either never experience adult interest online, or have doubts as to whether their parents care at all.
– An age limit can create the impression that the problem has been solved legally, even though children’s digital lives still require active interest and dialogue from adults. Research and experience show that children first and foremost need trustworthy adults who take an interest in their online experiences.
– No legislation can replace the role played by parents, teachers and other caregivers. Therefore, a possible age limit should always be followed by a strengthened effort within digital education and support for parents, writes MIO.
Bans can have unforeseen consequences in a country where the next settlement is often hundreds of kilometers away. Here, digital life is a lifeline to the outside world. Therefore, MIO calls for a much more nuanced approach, where you don’t just slam the door on the young people.
– It is important to recognize that social media in Greenland can have a special meaning due to the large geographical distances between families, friends and local communities. For many children, digital platforms are an important way of maintaining relationships across cities and settlements. Care should therefore be taken to ensure that protection must not lead to unnecessary isolation or limit children’s opportunities for community and participation. The discussion should therefore not only be about access or non-access, but about how children can stay in digital communities in a safer way, writes MIO.
Bullying and grooming do not disappear with a ban
The question is whether an access ban solves the underlying problem of digital bullying at all, or whether it simply shifts the harassment to other platforms and forms of communication. According to MIO, protection is only one half of the equation.
– An age limit may reduce some forms of exposure to digital conflicts, but there is no guarantee that bullying will disappear. It may instead move to other platforms or forms of communication.
– Therefore, efforts against digital bullying should also include teaching in digital behavior and better support for children who experience abuse online. Children must be protected from bullying, but they must also have the opportunity to learn to behave safely and respectfully in digital communities, writes MIO.
With over 10 percent of the children surveyed having tried to be contacted by adult strangers online, grooming is a real and sinister threat in Greenland. But an age ban does not remove the predators from the net.
– Stronger legislation against grooming is important, but it does not solve the problem alone. An age limit may make it more difficult for some adults to connect with younger children through certain platforms, but the risk does not necessarily disappear.
– The problem may move to other services or occur in ways that are harder to detect. Therefore, it is crucial both to set requirements for the safety of the platforms and at the same time to strengthen children’s and adults’ knowledge of how grooming is recognized and handled, writes MIO.
The responsibility lies with the tech giants – not with the children
When almost four out of ten children choose to bear their bad online experiences alone, it is often due to the fear of the adults’ reaction. If we introduce an age limit, it must therefore never be the children’s responsibility to comply with it – it is the adults and the tech giants who must bear the burden. MIO states that a ban must never be used as a weapon against the children themselves.
– It is important that children never experience that they risk sanctions or blame if they seek help after an unpleasant experience online. If an age limit is introduced, the message should be clear: the responsibility lies primarily with the platforms and the adults – not with the child. For MIO, it is crucial that children continue to feel safe talking about digital problems, even if they have been on a platform they really should not have had access to, writes MIO.
It is easy to focus blindly on the dangers, but for the 11-12-year-olds, social media is first and foremost a space for community, fun and creativity. If we introduce a hard age limit, we risk shutting down the positive life of children in cyberspace.
MIO believes that the debate should shift from being about “bans” to being about “frameworks”. It is the platform’s task to create a secure digital environment
– We do not see protection and participation as opposites. Children have both the right to protection against harmful content and the right to play, community and participation. The challenge is therefore not to choose between the two considerations, but to set up digital environments where both rights can be realized at the same time. This implies, among other things, greater responsibility on the part of the platforms, better security measures and a more systematic involvement of children in the development of solutions.
It is easy to call for a ban, but far more difficult to create real change in the children’s digital everyday life. If we really want to protect the 72 percent of children who today surf completely alone, there is no point in leaving the responsibility to the law alone.
– We cannot solve the challenges of children’s online life with an age limit alone. It requires a committed effort from parents, schools, professionals and decision-makers – and not least from the social platforms themselves.
In other words, the battle for children’s safety online will not be won in the courtrooms or in the EU, but at home in the living room, where the screen must be replaced by conversation, and the fear of touch must be replaced by adult presence.
