[The Editors' Verdict]Instagram Regulation? Teenagers Will Find a Way, as Always

Forced Restrictions Like Usage Time Limits
Teenagers Move Further Underground
Practical Protection and Education Are Needed

Social networking service (SNS) Instagram has been implementing regulations targeting teenage users in South Korea for a month now. The impact has not been significant. In communities such as mom cafes, occasional complaints appear like "Our child boldly demanded a new adult account" or "I hoped the child who never puts down the phone from mealtime to bedtime would change, but nothing has changed." There were not even common street protests demanding "guaranteeing teenagers' right to self-determination."

According to the "SNS Usage Status by Generation" report released last year by the Korea Development Institute (KDI), Instagram accounts for 48.6% of domestic SNS platforms. Moreover, it is the favorite SNS of 7 out of 10 Generation Z users. Considering such a platform, the regulation seems quiet. Is it because our well-behaved teenagers obediently complied with strong controls? Or is it because the responsibility-evading regulations by global companies have failed to achieve effectiveness without any sense of impact? The answer is closer to the latter.

Since last year, Instagram has implemented policies restricting minor users' Instagram accounts in countries worldwide, including the United States, Australia, and the European Union (EU). In South Korea, these measures have been applied since the 22nd of last month. The core of the regulation is strengthening the default settings for teenage accounts. New teenage users' accounts are automatically set to "private," and existing users face stricter content restrictions.

Usage time has also been limited. When teenagers use Instagram for more than one hour a day, an alarm prompts them to close the application (app). A usage restriction mode is set from 10 p.m. to 7 a.m. the next day, during which direct message (DM) notifications do not arrive. Additionally, certain types of content (content that may be harmful or have a negative impact) are further restricted in teenage users' feeds. The range of content teenagers can view is determined by artificial intelligence (AI) and algorithms.

These physical regulations have limitations. If only unilateral and forced regulations such as usage time limits are implemented, teenagers may move further underground. There is also a high possibility they will seek platforms like Discord, which are beyond regulatory reach. According to foreign media, even when parents restrict their children's SNS use at night, it had little effect. Instead, a "bingeing" phenomenon appeared, where usage was concentrated before the restricted time. This shows that the regulation only caused a change in usage patterns rather than solving the fundamental problem.

The same applies to content restrictions using algorithms. Current AI does not fully understand context, and content targeted for regulation is not necessarily harmful. For example, if videos dealing with real social issues like "martial law" or "impeachment," or posts on mental health topics such as "depression solutions" are blocked for causing "negative emotions," paradoxically, this results in reduced information accessibility for teenagers. Such unilateral blocking can hinder their development of reasoning and critical thinking skills.

In conclusion, Meta's measures appear to be for protecting teenagers on the surface, but their effectiveness is questionable. The company gives a strong impression of shifting the responsibility for teenagers' excessive SNS use onto parents. To avoid being a half-hearted regulation, more sophisticated age verification systems, strengthened digital literacy education, and active involvement from parents and schools are necessary. The more something is forced, the more teenagers will find a way out. As always. Only through practical protection and education, rather than simple blocking, can teenagers truly grow up in a safe digital environment.