What Some Are Missing About the Alcohol & Tobacco Age Restriction Analogy in the Debate Over Youth & Technology Use
- The White Hatter
- May 9
- 5 min read
Caveat - What sparked this article was a question we have received from several followers, “If society age-gates alcohol and tobacco because of the harms they can cause, why shouldn’t we do the same with social media?” It’s a fair question, and one worth taking seriously. This article explains why we believe the comparison is incomplete, and why simply age-gating youth from social media may miss the bigger issue of platform design, corporate accountability, and young people’s rights in today’s onlife world.
There are some who argue that because society places age restrictions on alcohol, and tobacco products for youth and teens, we should approach technology, the internet, and social media in the exact same way. At first glance, this comparison may sound reasonable. However, we do not believe the analogy is as straightforward as some suggest (1), especially when discussing access to what has become one of the most important public spaces in modern life, the internet. That said, for the sake of discussion, let’s temporarily accept the comparison, and examine it more closely.
When governments regulate alcohol and tobacco products, age restrictions are only one small part of a much larger legal and regulatory framework. These laws do not place all responsibility solely on the young person attempting to access the product. In fact, much of the accountability is directed toward the companies, retailers, manufacturers, distributors, and venue operators who profit from selling these products.
For example, if someone owns a bar, there are strict legal expectations tied to that business. Owners must follow occupancy rules, monitor intoxication levels, train staff, provide security, verify identification, and intervene when behaviour becomes dangerous. If they fail to meet these obligations and harm occurs, there can be serious legal, financial, and even criminal consequences. The responsibility does not rest entirely on the customer, given that society recognizes that those who design, operate, and profit from the environment also carry significant accountability.
In fact, during Darren’s policing career, he was directly involved in having bars shut down and liquor licences suspended for extended periods when owners failed to follow the law. The focus was not only on the underage teen who entered the establishment. The greater accountability rested with the staff and owners who knowingly allowed it to happen.
Had enforcement focused only on fining the teen, there would have been little incentive for the bar to change its behaviour. Meaningful accountability came from addressing the adults and the business that created, allowed, and profited from the unsafe environment. That same principle should apply when we talk about youth, technology, and social media.
The same principle applies to tobacco and vaping products. Governments regulate packaging, advertising, warning labels, flavouring, marketing practices, point-of-sale displays, sponsorships, and how products are promoted to youth. Again, age restrictions are only one small layer within a much broader system of legislation and regulation aimed at reducing harm.
This is where the current debate around youth and social media often becomes incomplete. Many conversations about online safety focus heavily on restricting youth access, and not on the systems, platform designs, and corporate practices that may be contributing to the concerns surrounding the use of these products by youth and teens in the first place. If we are going to use the alcohol or tobacco analogy, then we must apply the entire analogy, not just the age-gating component.
If social media platforms and online services function as digital public spaces, as claimed by the social media juggernauts, or even private commercial spaces similar to bars, casinos, or stores, then the companies operating those spaces should also face meaningful responsibilities and accountability obligations when harm occurs, especially when their products are intentionally designed to maximize engagement, collect behavioural data, influence attention, or encourage prolonged use.
This is why we here at the White Hatter, and many academic researchers, policy experts, and digital literacy advocates are increasingly calling for stronger conversations around platform design legislation, rather than focusing exclusively on banning or restricting youth access via an age-gate.
Just as governments regulate how alcohol and tobacco can be marketed, sold, and consumed, it’s our argument that the Canadian governments should also regulate harmful digital design practices, especially when they target or disproportionately affect young users. However, regulation alone is not enough, effective enforcement needs to be an important pillar if such legislation is to have any kind of effect (2).
Parents and caregivers should also remember that unlike alcohol or tobacco, the internet is not simply a product for consumption, it’s also where youth learn, socialize, create, communicate, build communities, access education, seek support, and participate in modern society. For many young people, digital spaces are deeply integrated into their “onlife” world where online and offline experiences are no longer separate. That means the goal should not simply be restriction. Instead, the goal should be education, empowerment, resilience, and accountability.
We should absolutely expect stronger legislation and meaningful oversight for technology companies whose products impact youth and teens. At the same time, we should also continue teaching young people how to navigate digital spaces safely, critically, ethically, and responsibly. In other words, rather than focusing only on restricting youth and teens, perhaps we should spend equal, if not greater, attention on regulating the environments being built around them.
If we are going to use the alcohol and tobacco analogy in the debate over technology and social media access, then we must apply the whole analogy, not just the age-gating part. That means also demanding meaningful accountability from the companies that design, operate, market, and profit from these digital spaces, because you can’t have one without the other when it comes to an effective legislative option.
Some argue that age-gating youth from social media is a reasonable starting point. However, when we look at jurisdictions that have already introduced similar restrictions, the results appear mixed at best. Many youth and teens continue to access age-gated platforms through workarounds, while others simply move to different apps, websites, or less-regulated online spaces that fall outside the legislation which should be a huge concern to every parent, caregiver, and legislator.
Age-gating may sound strong politically, but on its own it does not necessarily address the underlying platform design issues, online harms, or youth behaviour that caused concern in the first place. In some cases, it simply moves young people out of more visible spaces and into harder to monitor digital environments.
Rather than investing time, effort, and public money into age-gating legislation that will be difficult to enforce, easy to bypass, and likely violate our Charter (3) to obtain a political win, Canada should focus on regulating the harmful design features built into many platforms. We need legislation that protects youth and teens, but also recognizes and vindicates their rights to learn, connect, create, communicate, and participate in the digital world (4).
The goal should not be to simply ban young people from online spaces. The goal should be to make those spaces safer, more accountable, and better designed for not only youth and teens who already use them, but for us adults as well where the same harms exist!
Digital Food For Thought
The White Hatter
Facts Not Fear, Facts Not Emotions, Enlighten Not Frighten, Know Tech Not No Tech
References:
