Media researcher criticizes a general social media ban

Ban social media for young people? Social scientist Angelika Beranek believes it's not a good idea. Research into the dangers and benefits of social media has been ongoing for years. We spoke with the media researcher from the University of Applied Sciences Munich about this.

heise online: Australia has set the precedent. Now many countries want to follow suit, and the topic is popping up everywhere. But isn't the scientific community already investigating how social media works? Why this discrepancy?

Angelika Beranek: The political reaction isn't entirely new. We've had the Digital Services Act since 2022, which includes good regulation for social media, but we have a major enforcement problem. This means that the provisions within it are not being implemented as intended. And I think that's what has led to the decision that, okay, this isn't working, we need a tougher instrument to regulate the whole thing.

I don't know why Australia came up with the idea. Why it's being discussed so much here is, I think, relatively clear: it's election campaign season. And it's a topic that concerns a great, great many people. Therefore, it's simply a good populist topic.

heise online: You just said we have the DSA. Looking at our reporting, articles about it weren't particularly well-read for a long time. A ban on social media, on the other hand, gets clicks immediately. Is that an overly simplistic solution to a complex problem?

Beranek: The proposals have many rough edges and issues. From a research perspective, I'd say we need to slow down.

heise online: We always say that social media affects people and is dangerous. That's a kind of common opinion or assumption. Is that actually the case?

Beranek: Yes, social media does have an effect. You just have to look more closely at what has an effect. We often mix different levels. With social media, we have the technical component. For example, manipulative designs are at play. These are usually driven by the operators' desire to make a profit. In addition, we have social media as a medium for communication. Social relationships always impact us. Social media is essentially just a mediator here.

The digital and analog cannot be viewed separately. When we talk about things like beauty ideals, extremist content, when it comes to not liking certain values that are represented there, when it's about bullying, these are not digital problems. These are things that we also have in the analog world, and we won't solve them with a digital ban.

heise online: It's often said that social media does something to people. For example, it's said that YouTube radicalizes people. Doesn't that portray people as very passive in the analysis?

Beranek: Exactly, we've been discussing this passivity in media research since the 1950s. Essentially. We say that people are not helplessly exposed to media, but rather we first have a selection process. There's a research and theory approach called the Uses and Gratification Approach. And it states that we choose media because we expect a reward from them. The gratification is often entertainment, or it's about community, that is, social togetherness.

For young people, it often has something to do with coping with developmental tasks and, of course, with things like finding a partner. These are usage motives for social media. That's fine and wonderful in itself.

And then there's the aspect of 'it does something to us'. This includes things like algorithms that amplify certain content. They won't create something in me that I didn't have before, but they do amplify tendencies I have by showing me more and more of the same content. This subtly shapes my worldview.

A study recently found that men appear in public three times more often than women. Women do the same, but they do it at home. They cook at home, men cook in large kitchens. This is how gender roles are conveyed without us directly noticing.

Someone who is completely happy and content won't become unhappy through social media use. But social media still has an impact. One shouldn't forget that social media can also be used positively.

So, we don't just have digital problems here, but also analog, social problems?

Beranek: Yes, we have the technical aspects, which are actually regulated by the DSA. And then we have other issues that should be addressed more with general prevention work. This affects people of all age groups. It's about self-efficacy, about measures against bullying – whether in school or at work. Issues with one's own body image aren't limited to young people but also impact adults.

heise online: I think there's a lot you can actually get out of social media, whether it's DIY tutorials, recipes, ideas. It's very accessible. For other people, it can be much more significant to find like-minded individuals or role models through social media. Wouldn't a ban take that away from young people too?

Beranek: You can also see that it's very important for young people – because they immediately find ways to circumvent bans. What we take away from them is precisely this whole creative, inspiring part that social media also has, and it's just as significant as the dangers. In fact, we could even promote this by showing young people more of the great things they can actually do with it.

Social media is important for finding one's own identity. We have different identity constructs, and in my immediate environment, I only have a fraction of the identity constructs that actually exist. Finding role models is important, and above all, it's important for young people from marginalized backgrounds. Those we actually want to protect, we take away a lot from them with a ban. We also take away their voice. One shouldn't forget that social media serves to promote participation and give young people a voice.

heise online: In the past, probably everyone had a Bravo magazine at 13, and there were really only the same five types. That was it. Compared to that, looking at social media today, it's much more differentiated. Wouldn't it be better to have social media today than what we had with Bravo back then?

Beranek: It's much more far-reaching and also more accessible. We have children and adolescents, for example, who come from very strict households, who otherwise have no opportunity at all, they wouldn't even be allowed to buy Bravo. Through social media, they still have the opportunity to find life models and emancipate themselves a bit from their parental home.

heise online: So, was Bravo just as harmful?

Beranek: We discuss digital media more because you can interact with them. You can enter into other social relationships – including with stars. The identification is stronger. There's constantly new content.

heise online: There's also the ongoing discussion about what social media actually is?

Beranek: Yes, for me, that's one of the really big questions. Looking at the internet as it is now, almost everything is social media. What is often forgotten in the discussion about bans are all the gaming platforms. They are also social media, of course – be it Roblox, Steam, or something similar. I communicate with others everywhere, I create images, I have groups.

Another big problem we have is with all the AI companion apps. Are they social media? There are various issues associated with them, but also positive aspects, of course.

I wouldn't know where to draw the line. In Australia, kids simply switched to things that are essentially the same thing. Instead of TikTok, it was Lemon8. That's also supposed to be regulated now. And it becomes a kind of cat-and-mouse game. There will always be something new, and then the adults will ban it. This way, we drive children into unregulated spaces.

heise online: One question that, as it seems, is rarely asked is about parental responsibility…

Beranek: There's one thing that, in my opinion, no one can really get out of: that's the role model function. There was that famous saying, always attributed to Karl Valentin but not actually by him: “There's no point in raising children. They'll copy you anyway.” Your usage has an incredibly strong influence on children.

And of course, parents should talk to their children. What's really important in this conversation is not to dismiss it, not to say, I don't take your world seriously. In the manner of: “I'm saying this damn social media is going away now.” Then no dialogue will occur. But the kids should come to you when they have problems. So, I have to take them seriously.

I also see that parents need support.

heise online: How can parents be reached? Why, for example, are so few familiar with the parental control functions that can be set up on social media?

Beranek: We have this issue with parental control settings everywhere – also with consoles and computer games, for example. Very few are used. I truly believe it's largely out of ignorance. Added to this is the concern that one might do something wrong and lock oneself out, for example.

And then there's the question of how good these functions are. From a pedagogical perspective, I find it difficult, for instance, when parents can suddenly read along. That's like reading a diary. That's not okay. Much is simply not yet properly resolved.

But the ban debate at least makes us talk about algorithms and the fact that they can be manipulative or switched off. I would be in favor of switching them off generally.

heise online: Then there's the problem of age verification…

Beranek: … That's a point I always consider very important. Currently, it's said that they want to do it with this EUDI Wallet. Apparently, we're not aware that this excludes many people. Only 39 percent of Germans have activated this ID function, and only 22 percent of them are said to have ever used it.

It's not like at the checkout, where the cashier looks at you and only asks for ID in borderline cases. Everyone has to identify themselves. We exclude seniors, but also people who don't want to or can't identify themselves, people who can't manage it.

(emw)