Canada · proposed law
Safe Social Media Act
Find out what Canada is actually proposing. Record only the facts that matter to your argument.
Open Canadian source →Your mission
Should Canada restrict social-media accounts for people under 16?
Canada has proposed new rules aimed at making social media safer for children. Your job is not to make a slideshow that explains everything you found. Your job is to use research to build and defend a position.
To what extent should Canada restrict social-media accounts for people under the age of 16?
Builds directly from Case File 01 — Who Owns Your Face?
You already practised technology research, evidence, stakeholders, Power / Values & Ethics, and To what extent. This assignment asks you to reuse those skills and add one important new move: impact → implication.
You already practised technology research, evidence, stakeholders, Power / Values & Ethics, and To what extent. This assignment asks you to reuse those skills and add one important new move: impact → implication.
New skill
Why impact and implication matter
Strong Digital Society responses do not stop after giving an example. They explain what the evidence changes, who is affected, and why that matters for the judgement.
CLAIMWhat are you arguing?
EVIDENCEWhat proves or supports it?
IMPACTWhat directly happens?
IMPLICATIONSo what could that mean?
WEIGHWhy does this matter more or less?
JUDGEMENTWhat should happen, and under what conditions?
Impact
What happens directly?
Who gains something? Who loses something? What changes immediately for a user, company, government, family, school, or platform?
Implication
Why does that matter?
What could the impact lead to over time? What happens if it spreads? Does it change privacy, power, trust, behaviour, fairness, safety, or access?
Useful thinking move:
Give an impact. Then ask yourself: “So what?”
Your answer to “So what?” is often the beginning of the implication.
Give an impact. Then ask yourself: “So what?”
Your answer to “So what?” is often the beginning of the implication.
Why this improves an 8-mark response:
Evidence by itself is not analysis. Impact explains what the evidence does. Implication pushes the argument further. Weighing then lets you decide whether that consequence should change your final judgement.
Evidence by itself is not analysis. Impact explains what the evidence does. Implication pushes the argument further. Weighing then lets you decide whether that consequence should change your final judgement.
The argument deck
5 slides. The deck is your essay.
Each slide has a specific job. Think of Slides 1–4 as the four paragraphs of a Paper 1 extended response. Slide 5 proves where your evidence came from.
Research before you decide
Start with the real-world issue
Do not begin by choosing a side. First understand what is being proposed and how an age restriction might actually be enforced.
Australia · real implementation
Under-16 social-media restrictions
Australia gives you a real comparison. Investigate how age assurance works, what platforms must do, and what problems the policy creates.
Open Australian source →Technology question:
How could a platform actually determine whether a user is under 16?
Research 2–3 possible methods. Then decide which one seems most reasonable — and identify the new problem it could create.
How could a platform actually determine whether a user is under 16?
Research 2–3 possible methods. Then decide which one seems most reasonable — and identify the new problem it could create.
Evidence FOR
Find evidence that could support a restriction.
Evidence AGAINST
Find evidence that raises problems, risks, or limitations.
Stakeholders
Identify at least three. Ask: What do they want, gain, risk, or control?
Presentation rule
Your slides are talking points — not your script.
The audience should understand the argument by looking at the slide — but they should need YOU to understand the reasoning.
YES — argument headlines“The restriction could reduce exposure to harmful recommendation loops.”
YES — short evidenceA statistic, finding, short quotation fragment, image, graph, screenshot, or policy detail.
YES — talking-point phrasesUse 2–4 short phrases that remind you what to explain.
YES — source visibleSmall source label or footer so the audience knows where the evidence came from.
NO — paragraphsDo not paste your essay onto the slide.
NO — readingIf you can present by reading the screen word-for-word, your deck has too much text.
Both partners must think
Be ready to defend the entire argument
Both students speak. Your teacher can ask either person a question about any slide. You do not need memorized speeches; you need to understand your own evidence and reasoning.
Questions you should be ready for
• What is your strongest evidence?
• Which stakeholder would disagree with you?
• What is the strongest argument against your position?
• What would have to change for you to change your mind?
Impact / implication checks
• What is the direct impact here?
• So what is the implication?
• Why should that consequence matter more than the competing concern?
• Does the implication strengthen or weaken your final judgement?
What success looks like
This is still Digital Society — not a slide-design contest.
Visual communication matters, but your thinking matters more. Your deck is being used to make your argument visible.
| Area | Strong evidence of learning |
|---|---|
| Argument + judgement | Clear position that answers To what extent, stays focused on the Canadian case, and ends with a qualified judgement. |
| Evidence | Specific, credible evidence is used to support reasoning rather than simply listed. |
| Stakeholders + concepts | Different stakeholder perspectives are considered and Power / Values & Ethics are used as analytical lenses where useful. |
| Impact → implication | Students move beyond “what happens” to explain why it matters and what it could lead to. |
| Counterargument + weighing | The opposing case is treated seriously, then compared and weighed against the students’ own argument. |
| Oral defence | Both students can explain the reasoning in their own words and respond to follow-up questions. |
Paper 1 connection:
Slides 1–4 are doing the same thinking as a strong 8-mark response: scenario focus, evidence, stakeholder/concept analysis, counter-perspective, evaluation, and a supported judgement.
Slides 1–4 are doing the same thinking as a strong 8-mark response: scenario focus, evidence, stakeholder/concept analysis, counter-perspective, evaluation, and a supported judgement.
☐ We answered the exact question.
☐ We looked up To what extent.
☐ We researched how age checking might work.
☐ We have evidence on both sides.
☐ We considered multiple stakeholders.
☐ We used at least one concept meaningfully.
☐ We included impact → implication.
☐ We weighed a real counterargument.
☐ Our final judgement has conditions.
☐ Our slides contain talking points, not paragraphs.
☐ Both partners can explain every slide.
☐ Our sources are visible and traceable.