Berani dalam Benar: Australia Initiatives – the “new” AI?
Australia has made a courageous move ahead to rationalise the use social media among youth, especially those under 16 years of age. The subject of social media has been widespread and generally accepted as a "good" to open up safe space for countries that are regarded as "repressive" and "undemocratic" to say the least. Malaysia has been in this category for some time and gotten worse of late. The number of comments likening it to a "Big Brother" state and to that of a "repressive" one has been recorded from various bodies, local and global. The latest is the peaceful assembly on July 26 that is met with several unwarranted "actions" despite guarantees from the power that be, serves to confirm that all is not well.
While this brought about real cause for concern in some sectors, to some others the impact of social media on certain age group is equally concerning especially among parents and teachers in general. This is not new for example, as documented at one point, a popular social media was hit by similar issues. Reportedly, in 2019, body dissatisfaction, appearance, anxiety, lower self-esteem and depression were said to be related to the frequency of its use linked to these mental health issues. Allegedly, despite its wide reach and connectivity, several other drawbacks were traced that warrant in-depth examination, in particular, in an age where its frequent usage leads to various social, psychological and economic implications.
Still there is no serious systemic attempt to restrict it like how it was announced by Australia last week. Australian parliament passed the Online Safety Amendment (Social Media Minimum Age) Act on 29 November, which bans social media account access for those aged below 16 from this December. Violations can result in fines of up to A$49.5 million per platform. Deemed as the world’s strictest laws, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese says the legislation is needed to protect young people from the "harms" of social media, something that many parent groups have echoed. Included in the ban are Facebook, Tik Tok, Snapchat, X (formerly Twitter) and YouTube (which was earlier exempted but later retracted).
The entire world is now looking closely at the bold attempt. And as expected, the companies involved are among the first to “criticise” the initiative. Otherwise, despite the many isolated attempts made elsewhere, little is known of their consequences. Last year, for example, France introduced legislation to block social media access for children under 15 without parental consent, while a law in the US state of Utah - which allegedly was similar to Australia’s - was overturned by a federal judge who found it unconstitutional. This time around, it arouses more curiosity from what the Australian approach has to offer given its rigorous stance and sweeping perspective. What is more, at a time where Artificial Intelligence (AI) is making its grand entrance, not without several worrisome and negative expressions. Among others, it warns about bias, discrimination, and accessibility, as well as the lack of transparency affecting academic freedom and ethical-moral practices. A report on Artificial Intelligence and academic professions, reiterated that “[e]ducational technology, or ed-tech, including AI, continues to become more integrated into teaching and research in higher education, with minimal oversight.” It further states that “the uncritical adoption of AI poses a threat to academic professions through potential work intensification and job losses and through its implications for intellectual property, economic security, and the faculty working conditions that affect student learning conditions.”
+n contrast, few realised (as the report highlighted) that AI is both a marketing term and a usable product. Management in higher education and other sectors, the press, and technology companies often frame AI as “something new, opaque, and exceedingly powerful that will replace many activities based on human intelligence, including labour.” At the same time, they encourage public buy-in and network effects—that is, gains in the value of the technology as more people use it. Whereas technological interventions, especially those offered as one-size-fits-all solutions, do not seem to improve student, faculty, institutional, or research outcomes in education. Such framing serves to increase the power of technology firms and employers, thereby shutting down already meagre avenues for critique, dissent, negotiation, and refusal. It is with this in mind that the Australian initiative drew global interest beyond just the technology per se. It calls for a more holistic and humane assessment before going in head long! For this Malaysia, especially the related ministries must quickly sit up, listen and act accordingly before we miss another plot in the rhetoric to bring yet another reform through AI per se in the unbridled world of social media! We want to hear something real, as profoundly articulated by the Australian Prime Minister: "We want children to have their childhood. We want parents to have peace of mind."
