Create a crime of digital negligence. This is one of the many recommendations of the Parliamentary Research Commission on the psychological effects of Tiktok, listed in its report that was made public on Thursday, September 11. A measure that has reacted a lot, because it would consist of sanctioning parents who would do nothing or not enough to protect their children from the trap that can become the Chinese social network.
While the creation of a crime and its application seems extremely complex, the commission’s rapporteur, Laure Miller, recommends a three -year period to reflect on the subject and educate parents. Aware that they are not armed to protect their children from the dangers of Tiktok and other social networks, he recognized with RMC that an operation of “mass consciousness of the entire population” is necessary. So that no one can say “I didn’t know.”
But the question arises from whether it is really possible to educate parents in three years if such an offense was applied.
Inform parents
The measure proposed by the Commission questions the responsibility of the parents, by sanctioning those who show negligence. But not everyone can be declared guilty of such an offense, because some are not aware of the dangers present in social networks.
“The first problem of the parents is that they underestimate the dangers that children face. When we talk about pornography, for example, many parents imagine how they lived when they were younger, with images, certainly pornographic, but more ‘soft’ compared to today’s images,” explains Samuel Complez, childhood and adolescence psychologist, deputy director, director and electronic director.
Actually, many of them want to protect their children when they use platforms like Tiktok. But they still have to have adequate information to do it correctly. For Samuel Fillle, the first thing you should do to educate parents is to show them what really does their offspring on the screens. In addition, as Martine Brousse, co -founder of the La Voix Association of L’en Enfant points out, is a matter of informing them instead of educating them. An opinion also shared by the psychologist.
Beyond social networks, it is also necessary to educate young parents about the dangers of the screens, insists the co -founder of the child’s voice, to prevent an addiction from developing.
A collective responsibility
For Samuel Fillle, three years already allow “doing an interesting job” to help parents. “Perhaps we can think of information campaigns with parents, but doing it proactively (…) The idea is to offer them programs that really allow them to move forward,” explains the psychologist.
According to him, the voluntary side is important because even if the prevention sessions are organized, parents are not always numerous to come, but cannot be blamed for this. These sessions that take place at night, some are not motivated to come after a day of work, have home problems or may not keep someone to attend. Similarly, they cannot be accused of being negligent when some cannot see their children at certain times, because they leave the house very early in the morning to go to work, for example, Martine Brousse argues.
And like Samuel Filler and the co -founder of the child’s point of voice, the parents, together with the platforms, are not the only ones in this equation around social networks.
Since many children are educated, it estimates that parents’ associations could help them, transmitting information. The same observation for companies. According to Samuel Fillle, a manager could organize or at least authorize his employees to attend awareness workshops on this issue in the environment of his workday. “Pôle Emploi can also be a relay because we know very well that often, less informed families are also the most weakened,” said the psychologist, with “times” dedicated to this consciousness during training, for example.
“In three years, if we do things well, we can go to a fairly solid base and allow parents to accompany children correctly,” says Samuel Fill.
A problematic crime
In other words, when talking to them, parents can protect their children, exchanging with them in their use of social networks. For this purpose, dialogue is important, but we must also think about listening to young people, who are the first worried.
In addition to parents’ awareness, the creation of a crime of digital negligence is problematic for other reasons. Starting with what is happening once one of them has been punished. “Can you imagine that a father receives a fine, pays it and then? Is it more informed?
If necessary to act quickly, it must be done proactively and positively, while giving confidence instead of a crime, according to the psychologist. Especially because “it is one thing to create a crime and another is to apply it.” In the case of digital negligence, it would be difficult to punish parents in certain situations. For the parents they divorced, for example, if one authorizes their child to go to social networks and the other that prohibits it, it will be necessary to determine how we penalize, Martine Brousse specifies.
In the same way with children who are placed in houses and who use their smartphone to keep in touch with their parents. The situations about where to judge a father guilty of digital negligence would not be an easy task.
For both Martine Brousse and Samuel Filling, creating such an offense is not a good idea, because parents feel guilty when they are not necessarily responsible. The crystallized problem around Tiktok is just a manifestation of a bigger evil, which is necessary to take the body, making society …
Source: BFM TV
