The report of the commission on children and screens, called “In search of lost time”, was finally returned to the President of the Republic Emmanuel Macron. Partly revealed by several regional daily newspapers on Monday April 29, it was finally published in its entirety Tuesday 30 on the Elysée website.
The 140-page document offers an analysis of the challenges and opportunities related to the use of digital technologies for children and adolescents. But above all, it raises crucial questions about the regulation of predatory application designs, media education and young people’s access to social networks. While certain recommendations appear relevant, others nevertheless seem unsuitable or difficult to apply.
Recommendations for 0 – 11 year olds aligned with science
The recommendation concerning the ban on screens before the age of 3 is relevant because it is consistent with what the World Health Organization (WHO) and Santé Publique France propose. For toddlers, suggesting that they avoid screens in daycare centers or with nursery assistants is a very good thing, even if it seems difficult to control what happens in their homes. This can nevertheless open up work to reflect on the training of childminders, as well as on the issuance of approval for early childhood care.
The recommendation concerning “accompanied” screens between 3 and 6 years of age also seems to be justified in the light of scientific studies on cognitive development and the development of language skills, including these two studies published in the journal Jama Pediatrics. Not recommending the possession of cell phones before the age of 11 still seems reasonable, although we should not ignore the increasingly significant social pressure on this issue.
Starting class hours at 10 a.m. for middle and high school students, for its part, is one of the best proposals in this report. It has been several years since meta analyzes – including one published in Jama Pediatrics – show that adolescents are chronically sleep deprived and that this affects their level of attention. If we want to improve the well-being of adolescents, we must better respect their rhythms and conform to their developmental specificities.
The recommendations relating to the regulation of predatory designs and algorithms are also very relevant. This is a good signal to platforms which currently operate with virtual impunity, despite the rules of the Digital Service Act (DSA). The idea of shifting the burden of proof to platforms regarding the harmful effects of designs or algorithms is therefore an interesting proposition.
Unfortunately, as the report indicates, they will not be implemented at the French level, because they must be implemented at the European level in accordance with the DSA to which digital platforms must comply. Empowering citizens in requests for regulation, supporting research on the impact of predatory platform designs, and proposing algorithm settings to help users regain control are also relevant proposals. If there is clearly a feasibility problem, these proposals are a strong signal to the platforms which could be summarized as follows: “We understand that we are playing an unfair game with you”. Let us hope that the European Union will be able to seize it.
Finally, we must highlight one last interesting aspect of the report which concerns the recommendations relating to living together, in particular the strengthening of education on gender-related issues, civic education and the place of children in the public space. which are truly valuable. In particular the idea of reinforcing consideration of children in public spaces. Building more play areas, spaces or leisure activities adapted to limit their use of smartphones seems to be a particularly relevant option.
Ban smartphones before the age of 13? Problems ahead
Despite the efforts made by the committee of experts, certain recommendations are subject to debate and are not always supported by scientific data, such as the decision not to recommend the use of digital tools in kindergarten. These tools can indeed support learning activities. A meta-analysis of 19 scientific studies conducted with samples of children aged 2 to 5 years old shows, for example, that the use of digital technology in kindergarten can promote the learning of mathematics and vocabulary, improve problem solving or self-efficacy, but only if this work is supervised by adults. We therefore find ourselves in a situation where the elimination of digital educational activities is mainly being considered.
The most questionable point in this report concerns the phased ban on smartphones and social networks for adolescents. The recommendations seem unsuitable for the uses of young people and some even seem inapplicable. In particular the recommendation not to provide a smartphone connected to the Internet before the age of 13, which poses several difficulties.
First, middle school students use Pronote on their smartphones to track their homework and also to ensure that teachers are present. They can obviously use the family computer or the parents’ telephone but this is a loss of autonomy for middle school students under 13 years old. Second, this recommendation is very much influenced by the idea that the family is mononuclear. Today, family structures are changing, co-parenting is developing between separated or divorced parents, and new relationships are being formed. This recommendation does not take into account the fact that children under the age of 13 can maintain a link with the absent parent, or even participate in discussion groups bringing together parental teams and the children. There are also works showing that among placed adolescents who come under judicial youth protection, the use of a smartphone can help maintain links between siblings.
The issue of banning smartphones across colleges is also addressed in the report. My opinion is not the same as that of the commission, the literature being more reserved on the benefits of these provisions, with all the educational and material constraints that this may pose, without improving the problems of cyberharassment or mental health. .
The ban on social networks before the age of 15 or 18 is completely inapplicable
The most problematic recommendation concerns the banning of social networks before the age of 15, or even 18 for platforms like Instagram, Snapchat and TikTok. The latter is completely inapplicable from a legal point of view. It presupposes a restriction which creates inequality of access to digital technology between European countries. This desire to create a French exception with the digital majority at 15 years of age contravenes the DSA’s desire to harmonize laws on digital services at the European level. It should be remembered that the law of June 20, 2018 already provides that adolescents under the age of 15 cannot access social networks without parental consent for the processing of their personal data. A legal provision which is absolutely not respected at the moment…
If we nevertheless managed to put it in place, we would risk transferring the problems linked to social networks to other less accessible digital spaces. Teenagers could be brought to be exchanged by other, more discreet means, like rooms on Discord, which will ultimately be more difficult to supervise, supervise and also study. In addition, these staggered bans risk creating an illusory feeling of security among parents. They will be less invested in supporting their teenagers’ digital uses given that their children will not be expected to be on social networks. In the event of problematic behavior and violent situations, adolescents who are not supposed to be on social networks will have more difficulty turning to parents, educators or even the justice system to obtain help: we therefore risk to make some of the online violence invisible.
The important thing is therefore to prioritize media education for young people, which is planned in the report, but in a more realistic tier of bans, otherwise we will lose the benefits of these educational approaches. Finally, we must keep in mind that restricting access to smartphones or social networks will not allow to resolve mental health problems that middle and high school students encounter. If leading them to responsible use and allowing them to navigate digital environments in a secure manner is an important point, it is just as essential to recognize that psychological or family vulnerabilities can only be effectively treated through adapted and increased investment in mental health centers.