This task is Portfolio and it has two parts portfolio instructions 1. Standardisation Comparison (15%) o Compare your standardisation from the Standardisation Task with the exemplar provided in the t
The Standardisation Task
Student name: Gorgees Zia
Student ID: 44830769
Unit name: PHIL/PHIX 1037
Date: 07/04/2025
SECTION 1: Standardised Argument of Whitehouse
Conclusion: The government needs to develop or create laws to prohibit social networks for children under the age of sixteen.
Main Premise 1: Social media have negative impacts to the psychological well-being of teenagers.
Subpremise 1.1: Bullying occurs frequently on social media platforms, and it has negative effects such as anxiety and developing depression in young people.
Subpremise 1.2: Through the study of the effects of social media by psychologist Jonathon Haidt in his article called The Anxiety Generation, it can be stated that ever since the early 2010s, children and teenagers have experienced worsening anxiety, depression, and rates of self-harm directly linked to the use of social media.
Main Premise 2: Social media platforms are designed to be addictive, particularly for young users.
Subpremise 2.1: According to tech insiders, features such as infinite scrolling and pop-up notifications are considered to be designed to addict users, particularly children, for endless hours.
Subpremise 2.2: Haidt compares the addictive nature of social media to heroin, especially to the young person, and its impacts on attention and impulse control.
Main Premise 3: Government regulation is necessary because tech companies have failed to regulate themselves effectively.
Subpremise 3.1: Meta and TikTok have been involved in various controversies that demonstrate their willingness to compromise clients’ security, including that of children.
Subpremise 3.2: The world prevents the use of hazardous items such as tobacco and alcohol but allows social media to hinder the norm despite the negative impacts that come with it, especially to the youths.
Main Premise 4: There is strong public support for banning social media for children under the age of 16.
Subpremise 4.1: In Support of the ban, there is a public campaign, such as ‘Let Them Be Kids,’ and personalities like Wippa.
Subpremise 4.2: A survey entitled ‘Essential Poll 2024’. revealed that the Australian young generation aged 18-34 support the ban in a 67%.
1.1,1.2 = Linked
2.1,2.2 = Convergent
2.1, 3.2 = Linked
3.1,4.1,4.2 = Linked
4.1,4.2 = Convergent
SECTION 2: Opposing Standardised Argument (Word Count: 300)
Conclusion: The government argues that social media should not be banned for children under 16 years of age but rather that they should be educated or enlightened about its usage.
Main Premise 1: It is impossible, impractical, and unfeasible to attempt this, especially when it comes to monitoring social media use.
Subpremise 1.1: Some of the limitations include: Age - children can create fake accounts, use VPNs, or even use social media on another person’s device and provide a false date of birth.
Subpremise 1.2: Allowing parents and educators to lead and oversee children's internet activities is more effective in embracing the autonomous status of families and is more credible than presenting regulations.
Main Premise 2: Social media is not inherently harmful; the impact depends on how it is used.
Subpremise 2.1: There is a significant sense where teens, particularly the minority ones like the minority sexual and gender-identified youths, obtain support and safe spaces from platforms in social media.
Subpremise 2.2: Social media primarily supports young users in creative self-expression, identity development, and civility while also enhancing digital skills among users when used appropriately.
Main Premise 3: Banning social media to dismiss the responsibilities and look for someone else to blame, while in the real sense, youth mental health issues need to be addressed.
Subpremise 3.1: Prevalent mental disorders in young people are a result of different factors, that is, education, socio-economic factors, and stress within families.
Subpremise 3.2: The White House's reliance on the graph from Jonathan Haidt entails the ‘seeing causation in correlation’ fallacy or an over-simplification approach.
Main Premise 4: Public support and moral outrage should not dictate policy.
Subpremise 4.1: Even well-intentioned popular opinion does not guarantee effective or just policymaking.
Subpremise 4.2: This is where ‘chants’ such as ‘Let Them Be Kids’ come from, not from data and solid arguments.
1.1,1.2 =Convergent
2.1,2.2= Linked
3.1,3.2= Convergent
4.1,4.2 = Linked
SECTION 3: Reflection
My intention when countering the White House’s argument was to present a reply that is more conservative yet still progressive in essence, advocating for slow and deliberate change rather than immediate, drastic alterations in the structure of society. The White House's position is radical because it is insensitive to the context and applies an absolute prohibition to all families and children. On the contrary, my argument suggests a more reasonable and rational approach based on digital literacy and parental choice rather than a original need to conserve liberty from government interference.
I decided to address them to the White House, as they relate to the concerns of mental health and addiction because they are passionate and core to the arguments she presents. However, they were combined with new reasons not mentioned in the White House, such as the impossibility of enforcement and the context-dependent usefulness of social media. They were needed to highlight the scope of the problem and ultimately to prove that damage is possible in one situation but not in another.
The argument that requires further evidence is the one in support of the statement that social media can have positive effects. Because the White House presents such a strong emotional appeal, it’s essential to support this counterclaim with clear examples and research that demonstrate those benefits, thereby persuading skeptical readers.
Source:
1. Taree Trader: ''Decent Aussies support the ban to save our kids'', Mary Whitehouse, February 23/2025.
2. https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/article/2024/may/07/australia-esafety-law-changes-age-verification-social-media
3. https://www.abc.net.au/listen/programs/lifematters/jonathan-haidt-anxious-generation-social-media-smartphones/103993554
