Main points
- MP Yaroslav Yurchyshyn proposes to restrict children's access to social networks in Ukraine, focusing on the age threshold of 16.
- The issues of age verification, parental control, the risks of recruiting teenagers, as well as the need to create Ukrainian children's content as part of measures to reduce the negative impact of social networks are discussed.
- 1 Age and rules: how can social media restrictions work for children?
- 2 Which social networks raise the most questions in the Ukrainian context?
- 3 Why is it unrealistic to block access to social networks and what to do instead?
- 4 How to solve the problem of Russian content and AI?
- 1 Age and rules: how can social media restrictions work for children?
- 2 Which social networks raise the most questions in the Ukrainian context?
- 3 Why is it unrealistic to block access to social networks and what to do instead?
- 4 How to solve the problem of Russian content and AI?
The debate on whether to restrict children's access to social networks in Ukraine goes beyond banning or allowing. According to Yaroslav Yurchyshyn, a member of parliament and head of the Verkhovna Rada Committee on Freedom of Speech, who is promoting this idea, in many countries the debate on age restrictions starts at 16. He explains this by the fact that, according to psychologists' recommendations, cognitive abilities are formed by this age, and by that time the child's consciousness is easier to manipulate – in particular, through the formation of addiction to virtual reality.
But what exactly can be considered social networks, and how should Telegram, which positions itself as a messenger but at the same time has channels that perform the function of distributing information, be viewed within these limits? The MP also names the platforms that, in his opinion, create the greatest challenges right now and in the future.
Yurchyshyn emphasizes that it is not about a total ban, but about reducing the negative impact and combating crimes in the social media environment. His arguments include issues of age verification, parental control, school rules for using gadgets, the risks of recruiting teenagers through algorithms, as well as the need to create Ukrainian children's content and develop tools against manipulation and generated materials.
In a conversation with Yaroslav Yurchyshyn , MP and Chairman of the Verkhovna Rada Committee on Freedom of Speech, Channel 24 discussed age, control tools, the role of platforms and parents, as well as the specific risks of the Ukrainian context.
Age and rules: how can social media restrictions work for children?
What is your vision of the mechanisms for restricting social networks for children? The age limit – that is, up to what age is it restricted – 14, 16, 18 years old? All social networks or certain ones?
If we proceed from the recommendations of psychologists, by the age of 16, the habit of perception and cognitive abilities are formed, and by that time it is very easy to manipulate the consciousness of a child, which is why he or she becomes addicted, including addicted to virtual reality. In the vast majority of countries where discussions about social networks are ongoing (France, Spain, Australia, Britain, and Denmark), they start from the age of 16. But here it is better to consult with psychologists.
It's about social networks. But some countries are discussing messengers. For example, Telegram positions itself as a messenger and thus tries to avoid, in particular, European regulation.
At the same time, Telegram channels are more than just a social network.
Yaroslav Yurchyshyn
People's Deputy
The mechanisms used in the vast majority of countries are the obligation of social networks to verify age, that is, to create a real mechanism of age verification, and, accordingly, if the network does not establish it, then certain measures are taken against it. And then the responsibility falls more on parents: to monitor the parental control mechanism, that is, to make sure that children do not circumvent the prohibitions of this network. In the vast majority, neither the responsibility of parents nor the responsibility of children is assumed.
In some countries, in particular France and Spain, restrictions on the use of gadgets during school hours are being introduced. That is, a mechanism is being introduced: came to school – handed in a phone, left school – received a phone. There is also a field for discussions about the situation in Ukraine. Because in reality, we understand that for parents this is almost the only communication mechanism in case of danger, and in our country it is clearly announced more often than in other countries.
To what extent is such a mechanism possible and effective in Ukraine?
This is a field for development with IT specialists. In the vast majority of countries, you cannot buy a SIM card without showing your passport. Accordingly, it is tied to you. And when you register via mobile phone, the social network receives information about your real age. And therefore, in Ukraine, there may be organizational and technical problems with this.
At the same time, we are currently adapting all our legislation to the legislation of the European Union. If you look at how EU legislation on age restrictions is currently developing, leading countries are already discussing this.
Therefore, in this case, we can either wait until this comes to us as a general European rule, or try to develop mechanisms now. Considering that the risk that psychologists point out for us is further exacerbated by the fact that we as a country have little influence on the algorithms of social networks: Russians quite often use these algorithms, recruiting our teenagers, our children to commit various kinds of terrorist acts .
Recent events in Transcarpathia, when the FSB came after guys who were looking for work via the Telegram network. They were taught to make explosives, and then almost blew themselves up near the train station.
This case is actually not the only one – there are many of them. Therefore, we are at the stage of discussion: is it advisable for us to do this, how to implement it, or wait until it comes to us as an obligation with Europe, or now develop a mechanism that would be understandable to Ukrainian users and realistic from the point of view of parental control.
The vast majority of smartphones have such a mechanism. Do our parents use it? Very selectively.
Which social networks raise the most questions in the Ukrainian context?
How can social networks be divided by danger in the Ukrainian context? Should we put Telegram and TikTok in first place, followed by some simpler ones – Facebook, Instagram? Or are they not mentioned at all in this context?
The biggest challenge is Telegram.
Yaroslav Yurchyshyn
People's Deputy
The second at this stage, but in the future it may pose greater challenges, is TikTok. Because it uses artificial intelligence mechanisms very effectively and qualitatively. That is, targeting, aiming, searching for people – it actually wins there. Plus reels, shorts, that is, the video format. It is very popular among young people, among children. Therefore, these networks are actually, let's say, more vulnerable.
Regarding the networks that our children use: we are not talking about the X network, which has now turned into a “toxic swamp”, our children are not there. They use other social networks more. But there are a lot of them, and they are very niche.
For example, the BeReal network, which offers to take photos and show where you are now . An interesting point: if you just imagine that it is targeted by Chinese or Russian special services, how can it be used when people walk around and take photos. Very often without thinking about what they are taking photos of, how they are taking photos of, what objects may be in this photo.
But in general, across all social networks, there should be approximately the same approach. There is YouTube with gradations – what can be shown up to a certain age, up to 14 or 16, and with real age verification. YouTube Kids clearly allows you to guarantee that you will not watch adult content, or that adult users will not be able to come to you under your video and engage in bullying.
But, it is not a fact that the child will not have access to teenage videos for older children – such as, for example, the series “Strange Miracles” – it is not a fact. And he will go around, whining to his parents: “You can watch, you can watch”, – and here the psychological resilience of the parents should work. Therefore, the best option is to develop mechanisms with social networks, how younger children can use them.
After all, Facebook, in principle, positions itself as a social network, if I'm not mistaken, from the age of 14. But it is clear that it is difficult to check whether a younger child has registered there. Although the algorithms will very clearly show a younger child by the content that he will be looking for.
Therefore, the best mechanism here is cooperation with social networks. And if you look at how this topic is developing now in developed democratic countries, I suspect that in the near future, many networks will be interested in creating a safer environment for children to communicate.
Because the situation turns out to be quite strange: it has attracted attention, in particular, in France.
We have restrictions on the sale of alcohol to children, access to drugs (which is, in principle, prohibited), or gambling: all of this is limited to a certain age. But in the virtual world, this access is actually quite often leveled out.
Why is it unrealistic to block access to social networks and what to do instead?
In general, there are many moments that are difficult to control at all. For example, the culture of social networks itself. It is already 20 years old, the second generation lives in it, and it seems to me that it will be unrealistic to cut it off. Plus, parents have access to their gadgets, a child can somehow get into their parent's, sister's or brother's phone, and it will be difficult to regulate this 100 percent.
Yaroslav Yurchyshyn
People's Deputy
In fact, it's not about 100 percent regulation at all. No one can guarantee 100 percent. That is, someone will install a VPN in order to bypass all sorts of prohibitions – and I am convinced that some children will be at that level of development with technology. So the question here is: minimize the negative impact as much as possible.
After all, putting my hand on my heart, if parents want their child to watch adult content, and this is their position in life, they will eliminate any restrictions. Just so that the child can get into the phone and not touch it for a few hours. But we are not talking about a ban for the sake of a ban – this is not the Soviet Union.
The purpose of the discussion has several directions.
- The first is to draw the attention of parents: there could be big problems.
- The second is to engage in communication with social networks: look, we have to create a healthy space and healthy communication for children. Another question is that it would be desirable to somehow mix offline activity, in person, with activity on social networks. But here we still need to work with our schools, kindergartens, and parents.
- And the third direction is to counteract criminal offenses.
Let me remind you that just 30 years ago, smoking on airplanes was considered normal. How much harm did it cause to people, and what consequences did it lead to – and now it is prohibited.
We are developing, technology is developing. I won't even mention that once upon a time it was very dangerous for a beautiful woman in the Middle Ages if someone around her started to get sick, because she could be accused of being a witch and simply burned. Humanity is developing, technology is developing, and we definitely need to be able to use these technologies wisely, and not to our own detriment.
Yaroslav Yurchyshyn
People's Deputy
Therefore, a 100% ban is impossible, it's about reasonable regulation. And the best option would be for social networks to take care of this themselves, understanding social responsibility, understanding that they are becoming not only an environment for business, for communication, but also an environment for the formation of a new generation.
You are absolutely right: we have already had a whole generation growing up on social networks – no less than one, and in fact, probably two. Therefore, in this case, it would be very right for social networks to realize this challenge. And business is always business: it will never “cut” something for itself, even for the sake of a great goal. Again, let's remember the tobacco industry. If the state had not imposed restrictions, most likely, business would hardly have made any concessions.
Now, a lot of tobacco companies sponsor sporting events to show that we are not only making money, but also investing in health. Therefore, it would be most useful here if this discussion led to such protective, proactive steps. When parents think about where their children sit, how their children sit, who is talking to them, what is being said.
But we still have a big challenge here, that the war has exacerbated the phenomenon of social orphanhood, when many children are left to fend for themselves for objective reasons : one of the parents is at the front, another parent is forced to work hard to earn a living for the family. The child is actually on his own all the time after school. And, after all, school is the area where the child has the most contact with the state, with the state education system – even when he is in a private school. The state still sets the rules.
Therefore, we can influence this. And if we add a little more physical activity, outdoor activities, classes, games with friends, team games that develop interaction to the life of a modern child, it will definitely not bring harm. And, perhaps, then the issue of limiting social networks will not be so acute, because habits of perception, the so-called cognitive habits, are formed not only in social networks.
If we balance, the issue will be less acute. But we see that many more effective countries than Ukraine are now actively dealing with this issue. Therefore, I really hope that we will not leave it to chance, to self-resolve, because such challenges are never resolved by themselves, but will look for effective mechanisms.
How to solve the problem of Russian content and AI?
And a few more related questions. The first is the still lack of understanding of the Russian language, which causes children to fall into the environment of Russia, Belarus, Kazakhstan on social networks. Is it possible to somehow combat this within the framework of these initiatives to restrict social networks? Or simply block some Russian sources?
The Ministry of Digital Transformation, together with the Security Service of Ukraine, quite often blocks the most active Russian propaganda sources. But the Russians are starting to get more creative.
And, for example, the same “Masha and the Bear” is the most popular cartoon on Ukrainian YouTube, because it is translated. And when they started paying attention to it, they even removed certain episodes that directly promote Russia, so that there would be no reason to block the output. Although, again, there are all reasons for blocking. I don't understand why the Security Service and the National Security and Defense Council aren't doing this yet, because the money that this cartoon earns from showings goes to Russia. In fact, taxes are paid, from which the army of the occupiers is then armed. That is, there is no way to do without blocking here.
But we cannot do without a proactive policy – about creating Ukrainian-language, Ukrainian, Ukrainian-centric quality cultural content for children. The Public is doing something – they have “Brobaks”. Something is now being done through the Ukrainian Cultural Fund: strengthening Ukrainian animation.
By the way, Kazakhstan is currently pursuing a very active policy of countering Russification . And even on social networks, it has transferred all officials to communicate in Kazakh. And this is monitored, and they can even fine people when Russian is used on an official page. Theoretically, such mechanisms are also possible in our country, but not always.
You definitely need to work, because, unfortunately, you are absolutely right: falling under the influence of Russian culture is possible. Our generation, which grew up in independent Ukraine, should not have, but, unfortunately, this does not happen.
And the second question is the commercialization of children's pages that parents can run: some entertainment pages, or child stars, and the like. How can this be controlled? Should access to these pages also be cut off? Will they have some other status in this theory?
If this is content for children, and not, for example, the Russian song Sigma Boy, which is mega-popular there, but regarding its negative impact – on the sexualization of teenagers, the stamping of gender roles – there have already been hearings about this in more than one parliament, and in the European Parliament, by the way, there have also been hearings that this is a vivid example of Russian propaganda . Because children want to be adults, children want to be “like adults”, and that's why it all works.
Here, of course, we can quote the phrase of our colleagues from Denmark, when we asked them: how will you influence parents so that they do not violate the age restrictions there? The Danes did not understand us, because they said: what kind of parents want bad things for their children? And if a child is already punished by fate to be born into a family that actually uses it to achieve its goals, commercializes it, then social services can work here, but in reality it is the parents' and society's business, which supports or does not support it.
In cooperation with social networks, in principle, it is definitely possible to regulate access to some sexualized content. If it is children's things – how a child prepares something to eat with his parents, or discusses music, or shows how he plays games – then, probably, this is also quite possible.
It is important to understand and cooperate with child psychologists to understand what is timely and useful. In the context of the discussion of creating a safe environment for children to grow up on social networks, this is a very important and necessary topic.
The dominance of generated content – it is already manipulating all topics. It is used, perhaps, by both Russians and ordinary people who want to catch up on their traffic. What can be done with it to turn social networks into at least a more acceptable place? Is this the death of social networks with this content?
Yaroslav Yurchyshyn
People's Deputy
In fact, this mechanism itself is an artificial intelligence mechanism, AI creates opportunities to improve social networks and not fall for fakes, bots, and other mechanisms that this machine uses in the interests of totalitarian states, enemies, or simply to influence and manipulate people.
Taiwan is now very actively facing this problem. China is one of the leaders in the use and development of AI. Taiwan is also creating an AI-based mechanism that verifies Chinese propaganda and Chinese manipulations . It started as a public initiative – with the involvement of so-called fact-checkers – those who verify information – in networks.
A certain technology has been developed, and it is now being actively tested in the state. It is clear that Taiwan is essentially at the same level, and perhaps even worse, because the Taiwanese speak the same language as most of China. Accordingly, it is quite difficult to verify their propaganda manipulations.
We at least have the possibility that if you deprive yourself of Russian content, you also deprive yourself of 80% of Russian propaganda. And the Ukrainian machine, which is programmed by the Russians, is still very crippling, and this can also be detected. Although in reality, the further along it is, the more difficult it will be to do this.
Therefore, the technology of using artificial intelligence for verification, checking information, for detecting manipulations, for marking on social networks that this material could have been created artificially, or this material does not refer to verified sources, can also be a good mechanism for the general education of not only children and youth, but also, in principle, all people.
Because fact-checking mechanisms, when we find some emotional information, don't always work. Although, of course, if the information is emotional, it's better to check it in several sources that you trust. Because it's very easy to fall for Russian propaganda and simply manipulation.