As someone who has helped all sorts of industries argue their position with government, I have a little bit of sympathy for lobbyists representing social media.

Confronted with bipartisan support for a national ban for children under 16, industry advocates are doing their best to put lipstick on the pig. The problem is, the arguments they put forward are largely self-defeating.

A ban would just, “kick the problem down the road”, some argue. But, shielding developing minds from toxic content and dopamine-addicting algorithms is exactly the point.

Others argues that, instead of a ban, government should educate young people about the dangers of social, which only serves to confirm that there is, in fact, a problem.

But the shakiest ground for me, involves the industry argument that a ban wouldn’t be technically possible. That there isn’t genius enough in the world to solve the problems the genius creators of social media have gifted us.

Putting aside the illogical aspects of this argument, from an advocacy perspective I know this: if you are attacking the “how” in any discussion, then you have conceded the “why”.

In this case, the cognitive distortions, misinformation, disinformation, vilification and radicalisation; the political interference, terrorism, scams and exploitation — all made easier by social.

Professional sympathies aside, it may not be long before lobbying for the social media industry is held in similar esteem to lobbying for big tobacco.

This article also appeared in The West Australian newspaper.

All