The educational community has been focusing on the potential of social networks to implement training proposals since the spectacular development of the so-called Web 2.0 began in the early 2000s. Resources for interaction between users, i.e. social networks, were enhanced.

The creation of Facebook in 2004 marked a momentous moment. The success of the platform triggered a process of integrating social media into the activities of educational centres, at all levels of education. The new platforms that emerged, some as successful as YouTube, Instagram, Twitter or TikTok, were incorporated into the process.

The interactive possibilities of these networks are enormous. But attention must be drawn to the risks, since they are not tools designed for educational use.

Age and other legal aspects

The Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council of the European Union sets the age for consenting to the processing of personal data at 16 years, although it leaves open to countries the possibility of lowering the age to 13. According to current Spanish regulations, consent can be given from the age of 14.

In the case of minors under 14 years of age, authorization must be given by the persons who exercise parental authority or guardianship. In Spain, a recent Draft Organic Law for the protection of minors in digital environments contemplates that this consent cannot be given before the age of 16, so there may soon be changes. ( In Australia, minors under 16 years of age have recently been prohibited from not only giving consent to data processing, but also from accessing the platforms themselves.)

The situation in Latin America

The data from Latin American countries show different situations. The Montevideo Memorandum of 2009 places the obligation on platforms to set a minimum age for access. This criterion seems to be the one followed in Mexico , with reference to the age that social networks themselves usually set, which is 13 years.

In Colombia , a bill is being drafted to prohibit access to networks by minors under 14 years of age without parental consent. In Argentina , consent to transfer data can only be given by those over 16 years of age.

What does the transfer of data to companies entail?

Beyond consent, it is worth reflecting on the way platforms treat personal data. Placing students in a context in which the transfer of direct and indirect data can be normalized has consequences.

The content, as well as the data associated with it, is generated at no cost to the platforms, which profit from the traffic they generate and the bombardment of personalized advertising. There are examples of inappropriate and abusive use of information in the past . But, even without these types of potentially irregular situations, the data that is shared legally and voluntarily is enormous.

The extractive voracity of capitalism is behind the most successful social networks. Personal data is transformed into assets that are used to generate business. The tastes expressed by users or the patterns of behaviour on the networks give rise to advertising recommendations that target very specific profiles. On the other hand, aggregated and anonymised data are very valuable because they serve to detect trends that are exploited for commercial or political purposes.

Algorithm and addictive behavior

The dictatorship of likes and the addictive behaviors to which users are subjected are based on the exploitation of vulnerable traits of human psychology and sociology . The algorithms that distribute information are designed to enhance these effects.

Therefore, if there is a pedagogical responsibility, it is to critically analyse social networks, not to normalise their use in academic contexts. In the event that it is decided to incorporate a social network into teaching activities, educational centres must know what they are going to ask students to publish in spaces that are outside the control of the centres themselves.

Motivation and risks

It is true that social networks are familiar environments for young people and this can facilitate motivation. It is also true that students must be made aware of the risks of entering and interacting on these networks. Their indiscriminate and thoughtless use is not a good way to achieve critical awareness. Certainly not with what it implies in terms of data transfer and subordination to algorithms that guide interaction.

To educate critical awareness, we propose observing real situations that occur on the networks rather than public participation in them. It may be useful to note that there are data that are regularly shared and that include sensitive aspects.

Let’s think about the images of minors that parents happily publish. Or how easy it can be to put ourselves in the crosshairs of certain crimes , such as attempted theft or fraud, by exposing information about ourselves, our family or people close to us.

Polarization and misinformation

It will also be advisable to analyse the extreme aggressiveness of certain voices , as well as the strategies used to manipulate and spread lies and hoaxes . And it will also be very convenient to reflect on the ethics of interventions and how to react to inappropriate content of any kind. But, surely, it will be advisable to do so from outside the networks. It may be a good idea, for example, to practice in environments controlled by the educational institution.

All of the above does not imply renouncing online social interaction as a training resource . But it is necessary to determine which means can be used. If this is the case, institutional links can be established with selected platforms. The idea is that teaching activities are carried out with ethical and legal backing.

The visibility of the information must also be defined: Is work done in small groups? Is the information shared with the entire group or class or with the educational center itself? Is this information completely open to the public? The platform used should be configurable in this regard.

In fact, as noted above, formative social interaction can be carried out using the institution’s resources, that is, without resorting to external platforms .

Advantages and disadvantages to weigh

The issue of social media use has many points of contact with the current debate surrounding mobile phone use in schools .

There is no one-size-fits-all answer to which resources to use and how. In each case, factors such as the age of the students, educational level, learning objectives, and institutional policy regarding digital media must be considered.

In higher education, for example, certain opinions or shared data can cause problems in a future career. But it is also true that showing tasks carried out during a training process can be the first step to generating a professional portfolio. A balance must be found and there must always be an ethical awareness about the processes that are activated and the possible consequences.

Author Bio: Marcos Canovas is Senior Lecturer. Department of Translation, Interpreting and Applied Languages at University of Vic – Central University of Catalonia