The was targeted at the beginning of May, when the , with a forecast of up to R$50 million in fines if there are non-compliances. The measure responds to a concern supported by evidence. Studies associate the intensive use of social networks with worsening of health and self-esteem among adolescents. However, anyone who has been there knows the fragility of these barriers: all they had to do was adjust the year of birth. How can you design a policy capable of changing behavior when breaking the rule is so easy?
A , for example, . Among teenagers aged 14 and 15, only 27% complied with the rule; 63.8% reported using a banned platform in the previous week, according to de and other researchers.
Part of the explanation lies in the low cost of circumventing the rule: 75% of teenagers subject to the ban considered it easy or very easy to circumvent it; 57% reported lying about their age in verifications, 44% used a false date when registering, 42% used accounts from parents or older siblings, and 30% cited the use of a VPN. Among those who continued using social media, 42% said that their friends were still on the platforms, and 27% mentioned fear of being left out. Although they estimated that 30% of peers had left the networks, they said they needed 69% to also leave to do the same.
When a policy depends on adherence, the formal norm competes with social norms, compliance costs and available alternatives. . Its value depends on who else is there. For teenagers, it is necessary to accept being outside an environment of shared references, status and belonging in the name of mental gains.
Still on the survey, 47% of teenagers saw those who complied with the ban as less popular; 48% as equally popular; and 5%, as most popular. Therefore, if the most influential young people remain in the networks, prohibited behavior preserves social rewards, that is, the law says one thing, but the group signals another.
Cigarettes, an example recalled by the authors, help to see the difference in approach. The drop in consumption occurred due to a combination of tax increases, advertising restrictions, smoke-free environments, inspection and public campaigns. Mainly, smoking lost the social status it had.
With social networks, there is an additional difficulty: what takes their place. Reducing the time spent on the feed can generate gains by allowing additional time for sleep, studying, or activities with friends. However, it often just migrates to another application, one, one or isolation. Therefore, complementary measures such as incentives for collective activities and campaigns to change social norms can make all the difference.
Furthermore, the cost of complying with the rule is lower when the student is not the only one disconnected. That’s why. It applies to everyone, at the same time, in a visible space. Outside of school, supervision falls on families with very unequal abilities, and the authors discuss alternatives such as time limits, preferred by 72% of teenagers in the study. For the same reason, a norm by school grade tends to work better than by age —adolescents live in classes, not in age groups, and when part of the class can use it and part cannot, the group norm continues to encourage use.
None of this eliminates companies’ responsibility. Architecture, recommendation, notifications, and age verification can be regulated. But the Australian experience shows that policy needs to go beyond the platform when teenagers can still access the service and the group continues to reward staying on the networks. Any policy is more likely to succeed when it reduces the advantage of circumventing it, adds popularity to membership, and offers better substitutes.
LINK PRESENT: Did you like this text? Subscribers can access seven free accesses from any link per day. Just click the blue F below.
