Serendipity35

Australia’s nationwide ban on social media use for children under 16 takes effect today, making it the first country to prohibit underage users from major platforms outright. It is a noble and probably necessary thing, but I cannot believe it is doable.

Millions of accounts are expected to be affected as companies, such as TikTok, Instagram, Facebook, Snapchat, YouTube, and X, face fines of up to $33M for serious or repeated noncompliance. However, the law places responsibility on companies rather than families, and platforms must demonstrate that they have taken “reasonable steps," such as implementing age checks and removing suspected underage accounts.

I suspect the companies will say these things have already been put in place. (Have you noticed the increase in ads on TV and in your Instagram feed about their teen accounts?) And how will Australia monitor this? Critics say the law is difficult to enforce. It might push teens onto harder-to-monitor platforms. Enforcement may pose privacy risks. We know that many children who create accounts have already lied about their age. Can that be determined?

The research shows 96% of children aged 10 to 15 had used social media, and a majority had used a communication platform to chat, message, call, or video call others (94%). Anecdotally. many of them report encountering harmful content, grooming, or cyberbullying.

• Australia may have been the first country to pass a social media ban bill to stop children under 16 from accessing the platforms, but 7 other countries have taken similar steps, such as strict youth modes or time limits.
  https://studyinternational.com/news/countries-social-media-ban-children/  
• Read/download the Australian research report
  https://www.esafety.gov.au/sites/default/files/2025-07/Digital-use-and-risk-Online-platform-engagement-10-to-15.pdf

I saw the quote pictured above that goes back to 1979 when artificial intelligence wasn't part of the conversation. "A computer must never make a management decision," said an internal document at the big computer player of that time, IBM. The why of that statement is because a computer can't be held accountable.

Is the same thing true concerning artificial intelligence 46 years later?

I suspect that AI is currently being used by management to analyze data, identify trends, and even offer recommendations. But I sense there is still the feeling that it should complement, not replace, human leadership.

Why should AI be trusted in a limited way on certain aspects of decision-making?

One reason that goes back at least 46 years is that it lacks "emotional intelligence." Emotional intelligence (EI or EQ) is about balancing emotions and reasoning to make thoughtful decisions, foster meaningful relationships, and navigate social complexities. Management decisions often require a deep understanding of human emotions, workplace dynamics, and ethical considerations — all things AI can't fully grasp or replicate.

Because AI relies on data and patterns and human management often involves unique situations where there might not be clear precedents or data points, many decisions require creativity and empathy.

Considering that 1979 statement, since management decisions can have far-reaching consequences, humans are ultimately accountable for these decisions. Relying on AI alone could raise questions about responsibility when things go wrong. Who is responsible - the person who used the AI, trained the AI or the AI itself? Obviously, we can't reprimand or fire AI, though we could change the AI we use, and revisions can be made to the AI itself to correct for whatever went wrong.

AI systems can unintentionally inherit biases from the data they're trained on. Without proper oversight, this could lead to unfair or unethical decisions. Of course, bias is a part of human decisions and management too.

Management at some levels involves setting long-term visions and values for an organization. THis goes beyond the realm of pure logic and data, requiring imagination, purpose, and human judgment.

So, can AI handle any management decisions in 2025? I asked several AI chatbots that question. (Realizing that AI might have a bias in favor of AI.) Here is a summary of the possibilities given:

Resource Allocation: AI can optimize workflows, assign resources, and balance workloads based on performance metrics and project timelines.

Hiring and Recruitment: AI tools can screen résumés, rank candidates, and even conduct initial video interviews by analyzing speech patterns and keywords.

Performance Analysis: By processing large datasets, AI can identify performance trends, suggest areas for improvement, and even predict future outcomes.

Financial Decisions: AI systems can create accurate budget forecasts, detect anomalies in spending, and provide investment recommendations based on market trends.

Inventory and Supply Chain: AI can track inventory levels, predict demand, and suggest restocking schedules to reduce waste and costs.

Customer Management: AI chatbots and recommendation engines can handle customer queries, analyze satisfaction levels, and identify patterns in customer feedback.

Risk Assessment: AI can evaluate risks associated with projects, contracts, or business decisions by analyzing historical data and current market conditions.

As I write this in March 2025, the news is full of stories of DOGE and Elon Musk's team using AI for things like reviewing email responses from employees, and wanting to use more AI to replace workers and "improve efficiency."  AI for management is an area that will be more and more in the news and will be a controversial topic for years to come. I won't be around in another 46 years to write the next article about this, but I have the feeling that the question of whether or not AI belongs in management may be a moot point by then.

Ghost students, as their name implies, aren’t real people. They are not spectral visions. Had you asked me earlier to define the term, I would have said it is a way to describe a student who is enrolled in a college or university but does not actively participate in classes or academic activities. However, these new ghosts are aliases or stolen identities used by scammers and the bots they deploy to get accepted to a college, but not for the purpose of attending classes or earning a degree. Why? What's the scam?

These students may not attend lectures, complete assignments, or engage in the regular responsibilities expected of them, yet they are still listed as part of the institution's enrollment. In some cases, ghost students may be enrolled for reasons such as maintaining financial aid, benefiting from certain privileges, or fulfilling scholarship requirements. Alternatively, the term can sometimes refer to students who may be technically registered but are not engaging with the academic community in a meaningful way.

But more recently, I have seen the definition of a ghost student include when a fraudster completes an online application to a college or university and then, once accepted, enrolls in classes. At that point, the fraudster behind the ghost student can use the fake identity to act like a regular student. He or she can access and abuse cloud storage provided by the institution, or use a college-provided VPN or .edu email address to perpetrate other scams. In the most serious cases, a ghost student’s new enrollment status may be used to apply for and receive thousands of dollars in financial aid.

Institutions targeted by these scams can face consequences ranging from minor inconveniences to significant financial burdens. Ghost students may disrupt campus operations by occupying spots meant for qualified applicants or prompting schools to add course sections for high-demand classes, only for those seats to go unused. Once the issue is identified, colleges must invest substantial time and effort into carefully reviewing applications and monitoring student activity, placing a heavy burden on admissions officers, faculty, IT teams, and other staff.

I read about an extreme example from California’s Pierce College, where enrollment dropped by almost 36 percent — from 7,658 students to 4,937 — after ghost students were purged from the rolls.

If ghost students secure financial aid, often through federal Pell grants, it diverts funds from legitimate applicants and taxpayers. Their presence also strains admissions and IT teams. Additionally, if granted email accounts and access to instructional technology platforms, ghost students can overwhelm data centers and pose serious security risks, increasing vulnerabilities for institutions already targeted by cybercriminals.

Making the application process more rigorous is the most direct way to limit the presence of ghost students. But for many institutions, especially two-year colleges, that approach is antithetical to the college’s mission and desire to offer easier access to higher education. In addition, with enrollment still a major concern for all types of institutions, anything that limits the pool of potential students is a nonstarter.

Schools are instituting bans on cell phones in classrooms. These bans aim to create a more focused, interactive, and supportive learning environment for students. But they are certainly controversial. Some large school districts like Los Angeles Unified School District and New York City Public Schools are looking to or have already implemented district-wide cellphone bans. Though this is more common in K-12 classroom, in higher education there are examples of individual faculty, certain courses or departments that have initiated bans.

The reasons generally given for these bans include:

Reducing Distractions: Cell phones can be a significant source of distraction for students, leading to decreased focus and engagement in class

Improving Academic Performance: Studies suggest that limiting cell phone use in classrooms can lead to better academic outcomes, as students are more likely to pay attention and participate in lessons

Enhancing Social Interaction: Banning cell phones encourages face-to-face communication and interaction among students, which is crucial for developing social skills.

Preventing Cyberbullying: Cell phones can be used to facilitate cyberbullying of students, faculty and administration, and removing them from the classroom can help create a safer environment

Promoting Mental Health: Excessive screen time and social media use have been linked to mental health issues in young people. Reducing cell phone use in schools can help mitigate these effects

When cell phones first became more prevalent with students (starting with college students and working down to high school and now younger students) there were individual teachers who instituted bans on using them in class. There were also teachers who promoted the wise use of them in their courses. The cons side of this also has good reason against banning cell phones from classrooms

As Educational Tools: Cell phones can be powerful educational tools, providing access to learning apps, online resources, and educational videos that can enhance the learning experience.

For Emergency Communication: Cell phones allow students to quickly contact parents or emergency services in case of an emergency, providing an added layer of safety.

Developing Digital Literacy: In today's digital age, students need to learn how to use technology responsibly. Allowing controlled use of cell phones in the classroom can help develop these skills.

Access to Information: Cell phones enable students to instantly look up information, conduct research, and verify facts during lessons, promoting active learning.

Inclusivity: For students with special needs, cell phones can provide necessary accommodations, such as text-to-speech applications and other assistive technologies.

Organizational Tools: Many students use their phones to keep track of assignments, deadlines, and schedules through calendar apps and reminders.

Parental Contact: Parents can directly communicate with their children, which is reassuring for both parties, especially in cases of schedule changes or family emergencies.

A web search will turn up lots of articles on the pros and cons of cell phone use and bans on their use in classrooms.
https://congressionaldigest.com/pros-and-cons-of-banning-cellphones-in-schools/
https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2023/03/experts-see-pros-and-cons-to-allowing-cellphones-in-class/