One of the most debated issues of the recent web history is the question of age-gating. That happens when a specific group of people is banned from participating in certain public spaces, because they’re too young to have, supposedly, mature conversations. One question that arises is what people know about how young people make arguments. Another is what we want for their future.

And I think it’s reasonable to say that teens should have all the tools for growth at their disposal, in this state of the free world we all seemed to believe in — eroded by far-right ideologies that violated human rights of many, and treated them as inferiors in such a fashion that, soon enough, the similarities to Nazi Germany started to be drawn.

Of course, teen environments and life as a teenager are tough themes, and motives for stress among parents. But taking aside all the empathy we feel for parents who apparently are having a hard time because they need to explain what being gay is, there are questions that feel more urgent to address, such as respect for women, the notion of consent, non-violent communication, care for civilized discourse and good sources to base your arguments, which goes through the idea of media literacy.

The problem is that, in largely teen populated environments, the difference between adult discourse and teen-friendly discourse gets confused with the notions of false and true, because of how “relatable” it is — sometimes, based off of purely aesthetical choices and media creation tools that were introduced in order to distract, instead of inform.

The number of students who would rather watch a video with soundtrack in the background and a few lines written down simulating a reaction for something that didn’t even happen takes down the authority of the teacher to convince people of the importance of their content based on purely what they have to say, and while that area has been debated by countless people, we’re going in a direction that rewards “good social media” — and along with it, notably, very conservative views, for the sake of “professional capacitation”.

There is social media that is legitimately speaking to the marginalized, with niches that can embrace diversity and create a home for several internet-displaced people; but it’s inevitable to find trolls and haters who stalk you and make your life hell, even if just for a day.

The recipe for that is in the algorithm, and the incentives for stalking. Instead of comments of praise, we have hypersexualization and a humorous, if not distasteful, context of flirting with people from the opposite sex, as if conversation wasn’t possible without an invitation to a private exchange of pictures and videos.

The interest in social issues, however, is being harvested very soon now, and it’s actually in the curriculum.

It doesn’t make sense to ask for teenagers to study gender and not think about the role of certain media developments, just like it doesn’t make sense for them to learn Python and be handed out a package of an AI tool to use instead.

Critical thinking takes effort, and the more teenagers can pick better role models, by listening to curators of content that are not machines and that care for kindness and positivity, but also for informing people about possible harms of big echelon decisions in tech, the better.

The risk we take in banning teens from social media is that conflicts at home spike, and the Health sector has a lot of families asking for drugs they don’t even have the money to pay for — which makes up for an entirely new conspiracy theory.

The alternative, though, is to educate them. And that is the mission of this project.