Molly Russell was a normal 14-year-old a few years ago. She was thriving in high school, but particularly when it involved the performing arts.
Molly started to feel depressed, like many of our daughters and like teens her age across the world. In Molly’s case, it worsened and she developed clinical depression.
It’s what comes next that should break our hearts and forge real change – both legislatively and in how we handle social media.
In November 2017, Molly took her own life. And five years on, a senior coroner in the United Kingdom where Molly lived has issued a ruling that puts social media companies in the frame.
“(Molly) died from an act of self-harm while suffering from depression and the negative effects of online content,” the coroner said.
“The negative effects of online content”: The coroner’s words.
“She had access to images, video clips and text concerned with self-harm and suicide, or that were otherwise negative or depressing in nature,’’ he said.
I’m not about to describe them, but they were plentiful and delivered in waves by Instagram and Pinterest; all by algorithm. We know that happens. But a court has found that the images Molly saw should not have been “available for a child to see’’.
In the UK, politicians have raced to front the camera promising online safety bills, in the same way Australia has moved to toughen rules, regulations and laws in this area.
Children are targets
But where is the responsibility on the part of social media giants here?
How can global content be stopped at individual national borders?
How can we make what is illegal in the offline world similarly illegal in the online world? How do we stop nine-year-olds reading legal – but truly harmful – content? And how do we ensure that new poison is not popping up in loopholes every other day?
The use of Omegle – now commonplace among children who haven’t yet become teenagers – is terrifying. Just consider how it brands itself. “Chat with random strangers online – it’s fun, it’s a new experience every time.” There is not even a need to register.
But that’s just one platform that is drawing children in daily.
Tracking apps, where the information is sold to others, is clearly occurring. And so are cult-like sites preying on lonely and unconfident children; in some cases convincing them they need transgender operations before they’ve even visited a GP.
Call for action
This has got to stop. That should start with the social media giants who have been accused by Molly’s family of “monetising misery’’.
“If this demented trail of life-sucking content was safe, my daughter Molly would probably still be alive and instead of being a bereaved family of four, there would be five of us looking forward to a life full of purpose and promise that lay ahead for our adorable Molly,’’ her father told reporters.
Executives from Meta, the owner of Facebook and Instagram, and Pinterest took the stand during the case, and both corporates apologised.
But that’s empty without a determination to do something that will stop the delivery of unwanted, harmful, illegal and dangerous content from the smartphones being carried in the pockets of 10-year-olds.
Even Prince William joined the call for more action.
“No parent should ever have to endure what Ian Russell and his family have been through. They have been so incredibly brave. Online safety for our children and young people needs to be a prerequisite, not an afterthought.”
And that might mean parents banding together to ensure Mark Zuckerberg and other corporate bigwigs feel the pinch.
Routinely now, children are using smartphones at the age of eight, when 13 is the prerequisite.
But every expert in this area suggests it should be even older; perhaps 16, because of the lack of critical thinking skills and ongoing brain development in younger children.
Perhaps it’s not beyond us, as a community of parents and educators and medical professionals.
We’ve changed how many crusty old climate deniers see the future. We’ve proved that the world kept turning, with same-sex marriage. We’ve even sent companies that don’t adhere to ethical decision making to the wall.
What about those who have been found, in a court, to have contributed to the death of a 14-year-old; a teen girl whose parents describe as “endearing, gorgeous [and] extraordinary’’?
