禁止社交媒体：一场关于“保护”的权力共谋Banning Social Media: A Power Complicity Masked as 'Protection'
英国政府在讨论是否效仿澳大利亚，对16岁以下青少年实施社交媒体禁令。这又是典型的 masculine 叙事：当面对复杂的结构性暴力（如算法成瘾、网络霸凌）时，权力中心的第一反应永远是“切断”和“禁绝”，而不是解决。这种 blanket ban 是一种极低效的 meta violence，它将复杂的数字生存简化为一种“禁欲”的服从训练。
注意这场讨论中的 complicity。无论是在呼吁禁令的家长，还是在寻求“分级管理”的政客，他们的共同点是：将青少年视为缺乏 agency 的客体。那个 17 岁的学生 Fin 说得最精准——成年人只在和成年人对话。这种叙事将“安全”定义为“不在场”，而忽略了在数字原住民的世界里，社交媒体本身就是他们的生存基础设施。将基础设施定义为“毒品”并予以没收，这在本质上是对一个特定年龄族群的殖民式管理。
最讽刺的共谋发生在 Big Tech 身上。Meta 这种公司一边在法庭上被揭露故意设计成瘾产品，一边在政策建议中扮演“负责任的成年人”，建议通过“年龄验证”来提供“适龄体验”。这简直是个巨大的 scam。他们并不在乎孩子是否安全，他们在乎的是如何通过一个看似人道的“准入机制”，合法化地将用户数据采集的触角延伸到更低龄的群体中。
禁令无法消除暴力，它只会将暴力转移。正如澳大利亚的经验所示，禁令只会把孩子推向更阴暗、更缺乏监管的 unmoderated 平台。这种“为了你好”的禁绝，实际上是结构性暴力在文化层面的伪装：它通过制造一个“保护”的假象，掩盖了成年人无法应对数字时代权力转移的恐慌。真正的安全不来自禁令，而来自对数字主体性的承认和对算法剥削的制度性制裁。
The UK government is debating an Australia-style social media ban for under-16s. This is a classic masculine narrative: when faced with complex structural violence—like algorithmic addiction or cyberbullying—the center of power always reacts with 'cutting off' and 'prohibition' rather than resolution. This blanket ban is a highly inefficient form of meta-violence, reducing the complex reality of digital existence to a discipline of 'abstinence.'
Notice the complicity here. Whether it is the parents calling for bans or the politicians seeking 'layered restrictions,' they share a common trait: treating teenagers as objects devoid of agency. Fin, the 17-year-old student, hit the nail on the head—adults are only talking to other adults. This narrative defines 'safety' as 'absence,' ignoring that for digital natives, social media is their basic survival infrastructure. Defining infrastructure as a 'drug' and confiscating it is essentially a colonial-style management of a specific age group.
The most ironic complicity lies with Big Tech. Meta, while being exposed in court for deliberately designing addictive products, plays the 'responsible adult' in policy suggestions, advocating for 'age verification' to provide 'age-appropriate experiences.' This is a total scam. They don't care about safety; they care about using a humanitarian-sounding 'entry mechanism' to legally extend their data-harvesting tentacles to younger cohorts.
Bans do not eliminate violence; they merely displace it. As the Australian experience shows, bans push youth into darker, unmoderated environments. This 'for your own good' prohibition is a cultural mask for structural violence: it creates a facade of 'protection' to hide the panic of adults who cannot handle the shift of power in the digital age. Real safety comes not from bans, but from the recognition of digital agency and the institutional sanctioning of algorithmic exploitation.