COLLEGE OF COMPUTING, INFORMATICS, AND MATHEMATICS

BACHELOR’S OF SCIENCE (HONS.) MATHEMATIC

LCC401
ENGLISH FOR MEDIATING TEXT

ARTICLE ANALYSIS:
IT’S TIME TO BAN CHILDREN FROM SOCIAL MEDIA

PREPARED BY:
NAME STUDENT ID
SITI NORHAJAR BINTI NORHAMADI 2024977495
NUR IZZATI BINTI HASNI 2024938619

PREPARED FOR: MADAM AFINA NAZIRA AFNIZUL / MADAM MAISRAH

AHMAD KAMIL

DATE OF SUBMISSION: 8th June 2024

 IT’S TIME TO BAN CHILDREN FROM SOCIAL MEDIA

1 Brett McFadden got to the crux of the issue when commenting on the recent social media-inspired
assault on the bathroom facilities of western Nevada County’s two major high schools.“I think we
have to talk about the irresponsibility of TikTok and other social media outlets in allowing this to
go on.” McFadden was discussing a viral challenge last month called “devious licks,” in which
students stole items or vandalized school bathrooms. That challenge gained popularity on TikTok, a 5
Chinese-owned social media outlet that is popular with teenagers and pre-teens.

2 In our case, the challenge resulted in thousands of dollars of damage to bathrooms and the disruption
of school operations. The damage has to be repaired with tax dollars that were intended for more
productive activities. Educators have since warned of a potential new challenge that dares students
to slap teachers. That prompted the head of the nation’s largest teachers union to urge TikTok, 10
Facebook, Instagram, Twitter and others to take steps to halt the dissemination and spread of
dangerous viral challenges and misinformation.

The answer for McFadden is that there is no accountability, and nobody in authority is willing to
3
hold social media responsible for the reckless behaviour they permit and enable. As usually happens
when the news media focuses its attention on the latest misdeeds of social media, all parties in the 15
spotlight proclaim innocence and a desire to promote the common good. Then they go back to what
they usually do.

4 Exhibit A these days is Facebook, where a whistle blower leaked to the public a trove of sensitive
company information that details how Facebook’s platforms have negative effects on teen mental
health, its algorithm fosters discord, and that drug cartels and human traffickers use its services 20
openly. Much of the focus was on Facebook’s Instagram service, which is particularly popular with
teenage girls. The company’s own research, which goes back several years, shows that Instagram is
directly involved in an increase in eating disorders, mental-health issues, and suicidal thoughts
among teenage girls. But as Facebook’s own internal documents show, this is probably just a pause
in the war for the clicks and minds of the young. Internal documents show that Facebook is 25
concerned about its ability to attract young users who will become adult users. “Global teen
penetration on FB is low, and acquisition appears to be slowing down,” a document from earlier this
year states. Facebook’s teen audience has fallen by 19% over the last two years, another document
noted, and would likely fall by an additional 45% by 2023. A Pew Research Center survey from
2020 found that among 9-to-11-year-olds, 30% said they used TikTok. Just 11% said they used 30
Instragram and 6% said Facebook.

5 Instagram, TikTok, Snapchat, Twitter, YouTube and others are battling for a share of the young
audience with little or no oversight of how they attract these impressionable children. It is interesting
to note that China is one of the few countries that is actually doing something about it. For starters,
it is cracking down on online gaming, calling it “spiritual opium,” and limiting teen play to three 35
hours a week at specific times on weekends. TikTok is owned by a Chinese company, ByteDance,
that has several platforms that appeal to the young. The Chinese government has put a couple of
 them out of business, and the country’s version of TikTok can be accessed for no more that 40
minutes a day by users under 14.

6 In the United States, there’s talk about updating the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act, a 40
1998 law governing web sites that gather data on children. Written in the early days of the internet
age, the law has been criticized as inadequate for the current social-media environment. One
bipartisan bill in Congress would expand the law’s restrictions on the online collection of personal
data about children under 13, including limitations on the tracking of teens ages 13 to 15. Collecting
data on the people who use these free services is how social media sites sell their lucrative targeted
45
ads, but that doesn’t address the issue of what children see on these sites.

It should be the responsibility of parents to be aware of the sites their children visit and what they
7
are exposed to. While many take this responsibility seriously, there are too many parents who prefer
to offload the job of actual parenting to social media, online gaming, and television. In many
households, the good intentions of parents are thwarted because their children are more tech savvy 50
than they are. Several senators allege Facebook is encouraging teens’ use of secondary Instagram
accounts, or “Finstas,” with F standing for fake, that can be hidden from parents or others. Like the
purveyors of tobacco and alcohol, social media sites will do whatever it takes to capture the intended
audience. Instead of attempting to regulate their content and get ensnarled in the bramble bush of
free speech and individual liberty, social media sites should simply be banned from everybody under 55
18.

8 Critics of my proposal will say you can’t ban it completely, just like you can’t completely ban
tobacco and alcohol. But I’m willing to bet that if the likes of Facebook and YouTube were
threatened with the death penalty, they would figure out a way to keep social media out of the hands
60
of all but the most sophisticated hackers. If we give my proposal a try, the youth of America might
make more real friends to replace the posers they meet on social media, discover the magic of real
conversation, get more exercise, and might even start reading. That would be a win for the children,
their parents and educators.

Boardman, G., 2021. It’s time to ban children from social media. [online] Theunion.com. Available at:
<https://www.theunion.com/opinion/columns/george-boardman-its-time-to-ban-children-from-social-media/>
[Accessed 17 May 2022].
ARTICLE ANALYSIS

George Boardman's article, "It’s Time to Ban Children from Social Media," published in The
Union on October 17, 2021, argues that social media platforms are guilty of fostering harmful
behaviors among youth and advocates for their prohibition for individuals under 18. The core
of his argument revolves around the destructive impact of social media on young minds,
particularly in promoting destructive behaviors and worsening mental health issues. Boardman
cites alarming incidents such as the TikTok "devious licks" challenge and highlights the
harmful effects of platforms like Instagram on teen mental health, underscoring the lack of
accountability among social media companies. For this analysis, we focus on the author's
purpose, intended audience, tone, bias, and drawing conclusions.

The article's main idea underscores the pressing need to address the negative repercussions
of social media use among children and teenagers. Boardman's argument resonates with a
broad audience, encompassing parents, educators, policymakers, and concerned citizens. By
raising awareness and constructing a cogent argument for the prohibition of social media for
minors, Boardman aims to prompt discourse and mobilize support for decisive action.

Boardman aims to convince readers by presenting evidence of destructive behaviors and

mental health issues linked to social media use. He cites concrete examples, such as the
"devious licks" TikTok challenge that resulted in significant vandalism and financial damage
to schools, and the Facebook whistleblower's revelations about negative mental health
impacts on teenagers. These examples are grounded in specific incidents and internal
research, lending credibility to his claims. However, he also relies on broader generalizations
and comparisons, such as likening social media to tobacco and alcohol, which are more
anecdotal and less empirically supported. While his argument is compelling, it could benefit
from more robust statistical data and research findings to reinforce the claims made.

The intended audience for the article is the general public, particularly those concerned with
the societal impacts of social media on youth. This includes parents, educators, policymakers,
and anyone interested in the well-being of children and teenagers. Boardman addresses
parents directly by highlighting their responsibility and the challenges they face in monitoring
their children's online activities. He appeals to educators by discussing the disruptions in
schools caused by social media challenges, and he calls on policymakers by referencing the
inadequacy of current laws like COPPA and proposing stronger regulations. These targeted
references suggest he aims to engage a broad audience invested in safeguarding young
people's mental health and societal well-being.

In his writing, Boardman adopts an urgent and critical tone, conveying the severity and
immediacy of the issues he addresses. This tone is evident in his impassioned plea for action
to protect young people from the harmful effects of social media. Boardman's urgency stems
from his observation of escalating trends in harmful online behavior among adolescents,
exacerbated by the pervasive influence of platforms like Instagram and TikTok. Boardman's
use of alarm serves to draw attention to the alarming trends and potential consequences of
unchecked social media use among youth, compelling readers to recognize the severity of the
issue and take decisive action to address it. Overall, Boardman's use of urgent and critical
tones effectively conveys the seriousness of the situation and compels readers to consider
the necessity of implementing measures to protect young people from the harmful effects of
social media.

The author’s bias is evident in his decidedly negative view of social media. The article takes a
decidedly negative view of social media focusing primarily on its harmful effects while giving
little attention to any potential benefits. Boardman also compares social media to harmful
substances like tobacco and alcohol, which may exaggerate the dangers of social media use
and contribute to a moral panic rather than a balanced discussion. The bias towards viewing
social media as inherently negative and in need of strict regulation, potentially disregarding
counterarguments, and broader societal contexts.

In conclusion, Boardman's article effectively raises awareness about the negative impacts of
social media on youth through concrete examples. However, it could be improved by
incorporating more empirical data and acknowledging the potential benefits of social media to
offer a balanced perspective. The clear and direct writing style makes the argument
accessible, but addressing counterarguments would further enhance its credibility.

(695 words)
REFERENCES

Boardman, G. (2021, October 18). George Boardman: It’s time to ban children from social

media | columns | theunion.com. It’s time to ban children from social media.

https://www.theunion.com/opinion/columns/george-boardman-it-s-time-to-ban-children -from-

social-media/article_57b33f2e-9d3a-5eed-9840-35a4bd4c3b8c.html