The Summariser

TASK: Read carefully the following article and create an outline of the text. Then, write a clear summary of it in 300–350 words.

BANNING TEENAGERS FROM SOCIAL MEDIA WOULD BE AN ATTACK ON THEIR HUMAN RIGHTS

New data protection rules could block under-16s from social media access without parental consent, denying them rights to expression and information.

By Larry Magid*, the Guardian, December 2015

The European commission’s General Data Protection Regulation, voted on last week, aims to give consumers more control over their personal information and more transparency on how their information is used by companies and governments.

As far as adult internet users are concerned, the reforms presented in these new regulations are mostly empowering. But, whether intentional or not, they could wind up disempowering and disenfranchising millions of young internet users. When first drafted, the regulations generally reflected the status quo in most of Europe, the US and other regions, by requiring parental consent before commercial services could process personal information from children under 13. But, at the last minute, the age was raised to 16, effectively banning children from accessing Facebook, Snapchat, Instagram and other services without parental consent. After an outcry from technology companies and child protection organisations, the provision was watered down with the proviso that member states can lower it back to 13.

We don’t yet know how individual countries might respond to the age provisions in the regulation, but Janice Richardson, author of the Council of Europe’s internet literacy handbook, urges governments to take their time deciding and “consult with all sectors including parents, children, experts, schools and regulators” before deciding. Social media, even when it’s operated by private companies, is where young people go to express their opinions, interact with peers and family, learn about the news, as well as obtain health information and access to services. Depriving youth from access violates their rights of expression and information as well as their ability to participate in civic engagement.

However, June Eric Udorie, herself a teenager, is worried that inaction on these issues from governments is harming the physical and emotional wellbeing of the 13 to 20-year-olds. A new study has found that teenagers who engage with social media during the night could be damaging their sleep and increasing their risk of anxiety and depression. Teenagers spoke about the pressure they felt to make themselves available 24/7, and the resulting anxiety if they did not respond immediately to texts or posts. Teens are so emotionally invested in social media that a fifth of secondary school pupils will wake up at night and log on, just to make sure they don’t miss out.

Perhaps the worst thing about this is that teenagers need more sleep than adults do, so night-time social media use could be detrimental to their health. Research has shown that teenagers need 9.5 hours of sleep each night but on average only get 7.5 hours. A lack of sleep can make teenagers tired, irritable, depressed and more likely to catch colds, flu and gastroenteritis.

What is really worrying is that time and time again, these studies pop up and demonstrate that the mental health of teenagers, especially teenage girls, is on the line. We know this. We know the perils of the internet; we’ve heard about online bullying and the slut-shaming that goes on in our schools. We know that these studies demonstrate that we must make personal, social and health education (PSHE) statutory in schools and ensure it covers a range of issues from healthy eating and sleeping to consent. And yet, the governments refuse to act.

Of course, there will be teens who are able to get their parents to fill out the necessary forms to allow them to participate in social media, discussion forums and other online venues but there will be others who – for a variety of reasons – will be unable to obtain this permission. This could result in unequal access for children whose parents may not have the literacy, local language skills or technology skills to provide the consent, as well as those parents who may be afraid to fill out forms that they fear might get into the hands of immigration authorities or other government officials. In increasingly diverse societies, I fear a lack of access to the internet could interfere with the ability of some youth to assimilate into new environments and to explore social, political and religious values that may differ from those of their parents. This is a time when we should be breaking down barriers to interaction and social engagement among youth, not erecting new ones.

While social media has been linked with the radicalisation of some teens, young people are able to use online platforms to connect with each other, promoting understanding rather than violence and extremism. Nobel prize winning youth activist, Malala Yousafzai, for example, has advised that social media is the easy place to start acting against injustice.

The reality is that young people have rights and it is the responsibility of government to protect those rights, regardless of whether their parents are willing to fill out permission slips. In the US, we have a first amendment that says nothing about having to be over a certain age to enjoy the right to free speech. In Europe, countries have ratified the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child which grants children “the right to freedom of expression” including the “freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print”. And there is nothing in that convention that requires parents to sign off on those rights.

Legal and moral issues aside, there are also practical considerations. Even the current law, which effectively restricts access for children under 13, is ignored by millions of pre-teens around the world who lie about their age to access social media, so it’s hard to imagine how any government expects teens to refrain from doing likewise. The real effect of this regulation is to encourage European teens to ignore the law and lie.
Before 2006, when it was opened to the public, Facebook required users to be 17 or older, but that did not stop teenagers from signing up. Most social media accounts request dates of birth on setting up accounts but have no way to verify the information. Unlike those adults signing up to over-18 services, such as adult entertainment sites, which often use a credit card as part of age verification, teenagers under 17 do not have verifiable age-based identification.

For the technology companies the biggest issue with the new rules would be policing them. Stopping teenagers under 16 from accessing messaging, social media and other sites would be very difficult. European legislators are no doubt under intense lobbying pressure to remove the age of consent change from the draft.

The good news is that it’s not too late for individual countries to reject the call to limit the free speech of teens and keep the age for participation at 13 where it is now in most countries.

*Larry Magid is CEO of ConnectSafely.org, a non-profit Internet safety organization that receives financial support from some social media companies that might be affected by these regulations.

Some exam strategies to consider:

1. The introductory paragraph of your summary should contain: information about the source (and title, if given) of the original text (in this case: the title, name of the newspaper, date of publication, and name of the author); it should also contain an appropriate reporting verb. Additionally, it should contain the main point(s) the author is trying to make in the article/the overall topic of the article.

Failing to provide all this information will result in lower marks. This information is typically provided at the very beginning of the article.

2. The introductory paragraph should offer your readers a “bird’s eye view”/a complete picture of the original article. The overall topic of an article is typically a question/a problem that requires an answer/a solution, which means that the rest of the article is going to represent the author’s attempt to offer an answer/a solution to that question/problem. This means that your summary will have to report on that attempt by identifying the key elements that support the author’s argument.

ERROR WARNING: do not jump to conclusions when it comes to the main point(s) of the article; make sure you read the text carefully before you decide on the main point(s);

3. When you present the author’s argument try to stay as neutral as possible: you are not there to judge the author’s arguments; you are “a messenger” – you only report on what someone else said or did; nothing more, nothing less. Do not use personal pronouns or expressions that contain personal pronouns: “from the article, we can see that,” “the author argues that if we do this…,” “the author claims that if you add water…”. The article might be referring to “us” as people in general yet that does not mean that we can include “us” in the summary. Your opinion should stay out of your summary. Therefore, avoid such expressions as: “I believe that” or “in my opinion, the author is wrong when he claims that…”. Furthermore, avoid the excessive use of adjectives: they show emotional involvement and are therefore a sign of judgement on your part: “the author claims that the big problem of…”. It goes without saying that you CAN INCLUDE adjectives used by the author himself/herself.

Summary outline:

• The new GDPR that sets age limits for web surfing and internet usage (social networks in particular); > the problem or the question that arises in this context: the new GDPR sounds good to adult users, BUT what about the children? What about their access to the internet? What happens to them? > the claim: preventing teenagers from having open access to social media means denying them the opportunity to inform and express themselves.

• The author starts from the opposite perspective: June Eric Udorie, a teenager who argues that social media has a negative impact on teenagers’ emotional life.

• However, while the author acknowledges that there might be issues with teenagers’ access to the Internet, he claims that denying that access has deeper and more important implications: in the absence of access to the Internet, they might never be able to explore environments different from their immediate ones.

• First argument to support the author’s claim: “young people have rights and it is the responsibility of governments to protect those rights, regardless of whether their parents are willing to fill out permission slips”– example: the US constitution (the first amendment); the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child;

EXAM STRATEGY: if you wish to mention examples in your summary, choose the one that is most relevant to and most representative of the claim/argument the author is trying to make; there is no need to include all examples; when you edit for clarity eliminate those examples that do not add anything new to the argument;

• The second argument to support the author’s claim: the author then moves to more practical considerations: such laws are difficult to enforce (teenagers typically lie about their age to access social media); there is no effective way to check the users’ age when signing up for a Facebook profile (unlike other websites that use credit cards to check the user’s age); the biggest issue thus becomes one of policing and NOT of adding extra laws;

• Conclusion: The author concludes the article by saying that it is not too late to reject some of the provisos in the new GDPR;

Sample summary 1:

In his article, “Banning Teenagers from Social Media Would be an Attack on their Human Rights”, published in The Guardian in December 2015, Larry Magid claims that preventing teenagers from accessing social media means denying them the opportunity to inform and express themselves. The European Commission’s ‘General Data Protection Regulation’ (GDPR), in fact, controversially suggested raising the age teenagers would require parental consent to use social media, from under 13 to under 16 years old.

Teenage access to social media has both positive and negative aspects. Above all, Magid maintains that for teenagers, social media is where they can get information about their world, express their own opinions and feelings, and communicate with their friends and relatives. However, research shows many teenagers stay connected to social media during the night, meaning they sleep less than they should. This is detrimental to their health and can cause depression or anxiety. While Magid acknowledges the dangers of cyberbullying, he underlines the urgency for compulsory personal, social, and health education (PSHE) in schools to address this.

Magid claims that controlling teenager’s access could lead to inequality. Some disadvantaged parents may be unable to give permission due to a lack of language or technical skills or a fear of (immigration) authorities. Teenagers unable to obtain consent could be prevented from exploring important things, such as differences in the world in terms of cultural, political and religious values.

Furthermore, preventing teenagers under 16 from using social media is difficult to regulate. It is impossible to verify if the age minors give when they register is reliable or not; many youngsters are already ignoring the current law and lying about their age.

Magid states that freedom of expression is a right, even for teenagers, and both the U.S. and Europe support this idea; the former has the First Amendment, and the latter ratified the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.

Magid concludes by emphasising that it is not too late for individual countries to refuse to limit free speech by raising the consent on the use of social media back to 16.

Sample summary 2:

Larry Magid’s article titled “Banning Teenagers from Social Media Would be an Attack on their Human Rights” was published in The Guardian in December 2015. In the article, Magid argues that denying teenagers access to social media is equivalent to taking away their right to express themselves and access information. The General Data Protection Regulation of the European Commission suggested raising the age at which teenagers require parental consent to use social media from under 13 to under 16, which was controversial.

Magid acknowledges that teenage access to social media has both positive and negative aspects. While social media provides a way for teenagers to connect with their friends, express their feelings and opinions, and stay informed about the world around them, research has shown that excessive use of social media can lead to sleep deprivation, anxiety, and depression. Magid suggests that compulsory personal, social, and health education (PSHE) in schools can help address the dangers of cyberbullying.

Magid also highlights the potential for inequality if access to social media is controlled. Disadvantaged parents who lack language or technical skills or fear immigration authorities may be unable to provide consent, which could prevent their teenagers from exploring important issues such as cultural, political, and religious differences.

Magid argues that preventing teenagers under 16 from using social media is difficult to enforce, as it is challenging to verify their age during registration. Many young people already ignore the current law and lie about their age.

Magid concludes by asserting that freedom of expression is a right for all individuals, including teenagers. The US and Europe support this idea, with the First Amendment and the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, respectively. Magid emphasizes that individual countries can still choose to refuse to limit free speech by raising the consent age for social media use back to 16.