Thank you for speaking out. The majority of the voting age adults that I personally know are completely unaware that KOSA even exists. This is as important as age-regulated tobacco and alcohol restrictions. From a public health perspective, this legislation will save countless lives, restore a semblance of normal neurological maturation and social integration to our youths. We’ve all seen what an unregulated internet can do, the damage it can cause, let’s now see how much better things can be if the next generation is shielded, at least somewhat, from the harms and predations of this industry.
I am a Canadian. We have a series of online safety bills in parliament. I have more than a sneaky suspicion that these bills have an alternative, unwritten purpose. The purpose is to also squash dissenting voices, especially on government overreach and deteriorating civil liberties. The debacle of what is called covid makes me more interested in things that officials are doing under our noses.
Absolutely Lisa - hate speech may be punishable with imprisonment for life in Canada. Who considers something "hateful"? and how broad of a definition does the word "hate" have in Canada? Turns out the definition is very vague.
I am very troubled by politicians enacting vague hate speech policies. You are correct, with a definition more exchanges between people could be considered hateful. I also have limited faith in the judicial system making reasonable decisions.
One wonders if the young people (or their parents) have ever heard of the “Off” button? If they think social media “use” is tough, wait until they have to deal with real life.
I’m completely in favor of a deep conversation around social media algorithms, corporate incentives, and technology design; but the last thing we need is “more government” as the basis of the answer. Have we not seen the damage of Common Core, or countless other sweeping “reforms” aimed at “the children”?
I do not believe in the “universal helplessness in the face of technology” mindset. I’m quite sure we can raise strong, competent and resilient young people who can handle technology, if we start talking about things like social norms, parenting technique, schooling, and public role models. I’m old enough to remember that people were requesting “government warnings” on music albums and music videos. But back then I didn’t have time to stare at the television and “be helplessly programmed” because I (like most of my friends) was working at after-school and summer jobs learning how to grow into an adult. Maybe we should talk about the difference in two generations of people who worked after school and learned from human interaction, versus after-school today, and the 24-year old “teenager” so scheduled by helicopter parents and formal settings they haven’t yet independently navigated the real world.
For all the memes shared on social media, I’m surprised that the supporters of these initiatives haven’t encountered the one that goes, “The most terrifying words in the English language are: I'm from the government and I'm here to help.”
Your theory about helicopter parents is absolutely correct, but this trend of over parenting coupled with addictive social media use is precisely John Haidt’s theory. Government intervention is often necessary to inform consumers about addictive/harmful products (i.e. cigarettes, alcohol)— why should addictive social media algorithms be treated any differently when aimed at children?
It was not necessary for alcohol and cigarettes to have "government" prohibits/warnings on them for my parents to have taken decent steps to raise two children responsibly in the presence of them. There is a prevalent tendency today to have "government solve all ills" and that's where I believe Mr. Haidt's argument risks going off on the wrong tangent. Let's discuss the challenges, by all means. But as someone who moved from 24/7 legislating in New England to a state where the government meets every other year for 120 days only, I'm definitely not in favor of letting the regulator answer this problem for us.
I think as a society, we’ve overwhelming failed children and teens on social media. Enough parents didn’t stand against it and probably didn’t understand it and now the government has to come in and regulate the tech companies. How will it turn out? We’ll have to see. But, tech companies employees shielded their own families and children from tech/social media, but not the public at large.
While my experience doesn't mirror this assessment (I know many well-adjusted and completely stable kids who use social media) I would agree that the issue could use attention and action taken to strengthen children's ability to navigate technology-integrated youth. If, as you say, the tech-companies' employees did a good job at shielding their own families from the dangers, then we should learn from that: They were obviously able to do it without the need for government prohibitions, warnings, restrictions or laws. In other words, the most effective answer, from the evidence at hand, is that this is a problem to be solved through parenting, not government. And the more we can do to support, educate and empower parents to do what tech-company parents did, the faster it will improve.
Not everyone has the ability to resist the dopamine cycle, work itself has its own dopamine cycle. Workaholics exist. The issue is that children do not have the structural neurological maturity to ensure they are able to participate in real world activities and resist online activities in a balanced way.
True - why it's so important to get the right light exposure first thing in the AM, as we can increase levels of dopamine, and restart the melatonin cycle of regeneration at Sunrise. Children need a fighting chance. Heck - our brains' neocortex isn't even developed until the age of 25-27!
Hello, Matthew. Thank you for pushing a bit here. The tensions among privacy, protection, and liberty have seldom been tested as much as with this particular issue. All layers of society have failed - policy, schools, parents, and the private sector.
Parents have delegated their authority to too many outside voices (author Angela Shrier explores this in Bad Therapy) and the private sector has shown insidious indifference toward minors.
I'm not sure if you're a father, but I'm curious about your thoughts related to our collective responsibilities as a society toward our children (and all vulnerable populations) when other layers are failing. Because not all children have the luxury of parents who have the time, energy, or ability to control the ubiquity of technology. Which often invites the need for some balanced policy to fill the void.
I'm reminded of the "attractive nuisance" doctrine, which I'm sure you're familiar with as a real estate expert. This idea that I'm liable if any child trespassing on my property is injured by an object that is likely to attract children. Smartphones in the pockets of every child today is like every family in a neighborhood having an unfenced pool. And our approach to devices is like telling those parents it's fully their responsibility to ensure their kids don't accidentally wander into a yard and drown.
It's nonsense, but that's what comes to my mind when we dismiss the need for any laws that fulfill our compelling interest to protect children from harm. Particularly those who don't have the type of parents you described growing up with. KOSA might not be the perfect answer. But something must be done.
Interesting perspectives, Chris. I appreciate you sharing them. In essence, I would take the exact opposite approach. First, I don't believe in "our collective responsibilities as a society toward our children (and all vulnerable populations) when other layers are failing" because I don't believe in collective responsibility; only individual responsibility. In the case of a parent/child, this leaves the management of technology to the family, not the society. I shudder to think what's possible when we let the "collective" decide how to raise someone's children. It's too dangerous that the "collective" would advocate for values, norms and practices that a certain family would find anathema. To wit, notice that recently "one collective" voted to put religious guidance into public schools, and another collective was upset. The case of smartphone technology is no different; One parent's permissiveness is another parent's prohibitions.
This is not to say that individuals and groups - such as yourself and like-minded - cannot *advocate* for your point of view - sharing through dialogue and discussion ways that parents might voluntarily adopt/adapt ideas and best practices to their own needs. But the ultimate luxury belief is that parents who don't have the "time, energy or ability" should have their responsibilities taken care of by "the collective." That's not the society I'd welcome at all.
We can advocate for fencing in pools; we can even legislate it as a precaution. But we ultimately cannot transfer the final responsibility for a parent's child safe to the neighbor. The government might even express a helpful impulse (even one enjoyed by all) to warn and advise the population. And we do, with plenty of laws limiting how businesses treat customers of all ages - and of younger ages, specifically. Beyond that, talks of banning things usually end up counterproductive, or invite further abuse. For every rule, three methods for circumventing it are devised by determined individuals. Surely, you smoked or drank or drove as a teen before you were "officially" permitted? No? Perhaps you watched a movie or read a book beyond the warning label or listen to albums that Tipper Gore cautioned were "explicit"?
Be cautious before thinking some have "dismiss[ed] the need for any laws." I don't think adding another page to the 81,405 pages of the Federal Register is going to make any difference. We're much better off advocate to the person directly responsible for purchasing, providing, provisioning and paying for the technology - and who absolutely can revoke possession of it: The parents who certainly see their children off to school and off to bed, and can readily handle this without requiring the "compelling interest of strangers" to invade their home and family.
I fully agree that something must be done: the difference is always -- by whom.
Thank you, Matthew. Good perspectives. I enjoy the banter as a sharpening tool for my thoughts. And you've shared them clearly and calmly, which I appreciate. I truly want the personal liberty approach. I want to allow laissez faire to dictate business decisions.
In my initial post, I wrote, "I'm not sure if you're a father...." because raising a child today creates a perspective that is almost impossible to fully acquire otherwise.
Childhood has always had risks. And we must allow some of those to be navigated by the child and his/her friends. Lest they know nothing of adversity. The mostly analog childhood that you and I likely enjoyed allowed intentional parents - like yours - to mostly mitigate the risk of egregious harm to children enough of the time.
Sure, a drink. Sure, a magazine or VHS. Sure, a spin around the parking lot. But these required intense planning, effort, and a flowchart to pull off if you had intentional parents.
And that's the difference today. Because the egregious harm is in the pocket. The egregious harm is on the same thing where you learn language arts. The egregious harm is on what dad uses for work with a VPN.
In my experience - both as a father to 3 tween boys and a teen daughter, and after thousands of conversations with parents globally, no amount of intentional parenting in the digital age brings the risk of egregious harm down to an acceptable level.
Unless you are homesteading, off the grid, disconnected from friends and family (including cousins), etc.
"I’m completely in favor of a deep conversation around social media algorithms, corporate incentives, and technology design" - Yes! But when they don't listen, then what? Section 230 disallows any acceptable level of liability deterrence. Product liability has always been the great constraint to irresponsible capitalism.
"We're much better off advocate to the person directly responsible for purchasing, providing, provisioning and paying for the technology" - Yes! But when the Verizon store won't do that, or Apple has nothing in their activation process that accurately informs parents of the risks, and App Stores have ignored their responsibility to age verify users and obtain parental consent before creating contracts with minors (which isn't allowed in the physical world), then what?
I desperately want a world where all layers: parents, companies, schools, and governments (in that order, top to bottom) adequately steward their duty of care toward children. And I 10000% agree that millions of parents need to grow a backbone and just need to say "no."
But in my opinion, even when parents do their part - and I have 100 stories - without companies and schools doing their job, the amount and intensity of harm that can still be wrought on my child is unacceptable, at least to me. Similar to the Enron/Sarbanes-Oxley days I lived through at EY, which created a framework, liability, and penalties, I'd like to see a child safe design framework adopted, Section 230 adjusted, a few surgical policies passed, and personal liability for executives & significant penalties for companies who ignore them.
When I read comments like these, I have no doubt you are not aware of what is targeted towards teens. It has nothing to do with if they can turn off their tech. It has everything to do with what they are exposed to. If you have not read the WSJ article on their exposé into creating accounts of teen age girls on instagram and the porn content they were served, you should. This is only a part of what our kids are facing. And trying to forbid kids from tech or loving your kids more to prevent such an issue is futile. This is what is in the zeitgeist. We regulate lots of things so kids do not easily have access to it - cigarettes, vaping devices, porn magazines, tattoos, tanning booths etc, tech is no different.
Agreed Matthew - this should be raising red flags for us everywhere. I believe social media and tech addiction, although very real, are red herrings for the true mode of addiction and assault, which is blue light and wireless radiation (EMF). What do you think about that?
Thanks for your reply Matthew. Basically blue light spikes and depletes dopamine as the melanopsin receptors in our eyes are destroyed, as retinol and other proteins in our eyes misfold due to hypoxia (lack of oxygen) and chronic stress from unbalanced, artificial light.
Current wireless safety limits are based on heat/thermal, however do not consider the mass of the iceberg, which are non-thermal and biological. All western govt safety standards are based on a mannequin with its head filled with fluid called SAM.
Yeah, I'm not sure if this was added as a "to be sure" to convince people that the author isn't just a social media scold, but...no. I will happily concede that Youtube is often shockingly useful. But none of the videos on drywall repair that I've benefited from are going to make it into a museum.
I don't disagree with the diagnosis; I disagree with the prescription. Parents can parent: buy their children flip phones with gps and texting; and teach their kids the advantages of interpersonal skills (over their peers who are stuck on their screens). Or many other things other than a government regulator's approach.
Children cannot resist many things in youth; that's what parenting is all about. My parents knew I would be hard pressed to resist caffeine, drugs, and alcohol. They used a variety of adult-children-based techniques to raise someone who was able to drink coffee, avoid drugs, drank responsibly.
The answer to everything is rarely invite the Congressman to do it for us, lest the wish to do it all for us.
Even if we disregard the Sisyphean cycle of moral panic around every new technology and the almost identical warnings that stretch back 2000 years, these apocalyptic talks might bear greater witness to the general impression of a collapsing world and an anxious generation than the actual changes on the ground. In other words, the worsening of good things are actually the improvement of bad things. Had the French society not “polarised” in the 18th century, people would continue to live in severe misery.
What we need to consider is that the Internet is blurring the distinction between private and public spheres. This has far-reaching ramifications in the social and political life of individuals and society. Basic assumptions about eg "identity," "normalcy," "gender," "family," and "truth" are called into question. This has significant impact on our perceptions of the nature of our reality, including self, mental health, moral issues and so on. Taboos and private issues are brought into the public to be discussed and redefined. Of course this gives the impression of a lot of awfulness.
Nota bene: I am not saying the Internet is completely unproblematic, but it's a highly complex topic with deep-rooted structural problems that require more analysis than mere statistics. Rather than looking at what the Internet does to society and people, we need to look at what it may be exposing about them. In other words, children and youth's relationship with society and its social illnesses (appearance and body, status, success, upbringing, and violence) as mediated by the Internet.
I think an online safety bill is a great proposal, but seems like a really difficult problem to not become overly authoritarian. However, regulating feeds to become more personalized is a great idea. Super intriguing and seems like it has potential. Social media is so new, regulation seems inevitable but also completely necessary.
I’ve noticed many in this comment thread say to rely on parents to regulate. It is almost as if many people live in a bubble. There are one hand the parents who try, but are not home to police their children and then the other hand: bad parents who allow their children whatever. At this point, the government is stepping in to help those groups. Of course this won’t solve 100% of the problem but it can wake some people up and help others.
Teens were 3.5 times more likely to rate social media as having a positive effect (32%) than a negative effect (9%) on their lives -- with 59% saying it had neither. "Majorities of teens report experiencing each of the four positive experiences asked about: feeling more connected to what is going on in their friends’ lives (80%), like they have a place where they can show their creative side (71%), like they have people who can support them through tough times (67%), and that they are more accepted (58%)."
The CDC's 2021 survey also shows teen social media users are much less likely to attempt suicide or self-harm than teens who rarely or never use social media. I'm all for helping the 9% of teens who find their experiences negative avoid social media, as well as eliminating platforms' gross commercial exploitation of all ages. But there should be no restrictions on online access for teens of any age. Adolescents' judgment is much better than that of all the interest groups who can't even acknowledge basic realities and challenges young people face, including dealing with increasingly troubled adult generations.
I have been following KoSA and was not able to find out what the LGBTQ+ orgs were trying to change. NCOSE was not transparent. If you are a parent and have a kid in the TQ+ alphabet, you are well aware of the grooming and indoctrination that happens online. Read PITT articles. Groups of parents are trying to get their kids off the internet to break the bond with the TQ+ cult trying to save their kids- many are going to the lengths of planning trips overseas where scenes to the internet is severely curbed.
While this is a good step, I don’t think it really solves the problem. Here’s why - there are private parties, not tech companies or social media platforms, who are intentionally targeting vulnerable young people online. The primary example of this is Tumblr. While Tumblr does have the ability to suggest content, most users don’t use this feature. They search for content about something that interests them and follow people who post that content. When those users repost other people’s content, they then choose to follow those other people, slowly building the set of users they follow. Any account on Tumblr can then post content about topics that are interesting to young people to entice them to follow, then intersperse that content with propaganda and extremist views. This is happening on multiple platforms, but Tumblr seems to be one of the worst, possibly because it doesn’t have a strongly controlled algorithm suggesting content. At least when social media companies are pushing certain content we know their motive - to keep users engaged and viewing ads. Not so with private parties - their motives may be shadier, including foreign governments working to destroy western nations or traffickers priming kids to reject their families and leave home to meet with strangers. Eliminating algorithms does nothing to prevent this and may even make platforms more vulnerable to manipulation by private parties since now all of a user’s content, not just some of it, is controlled by strangers whose motives are unknown.
This is how people get sucked into incel and QAnon and other cult-like online communities. It’s not platforms that are pushing this stuff.
Thank you for speaking out. The majority of the voting age adults that I personally know are completely unaware that KOSA even exists. This is as important as age-regulated tobacco and alcohol restrictions. From a public health perspective, this legislation will save countless lives, restore a semblance of normal neurological maturation and social integration to our youths. We’ve all seen what an unregulated internet can do, the damage it can cause, let’s now see how much better things can be if the next generation is shielded, at least somewhat, from the harms and predations of this industry.
I am a Canadian. We have a series of online safety bills in parliament. I have more than a sneaky suspicion that these bills have an alternative, unwritten purpose. The purpose is to also squash dissenting voices, especially on government overreach and deteriorating civil liberties. The debacle of what is called covid makes me more interested in things that officials are doing under our noses.
Absolutely Lisa - hate speech may be punishable with imprisonment for life in Canada. Who considers something "hateful"? and how broad of a definition does the word "hate" have in Canada? Turns out the definition is very vague.
https://romanshapoval.substack.com/p/techmyth
I am very troubled by politicians enacting vague hate speech policies. You are correct, with a definition more exchanges between people could be considered hateful. I also have limited faith in the judicial system making reasonable decisions.
I hope there are many more of you Lisa!
🎯
Thanks so much Blair! It's common sense, no?
Absolutely, Roman!
I am on board for this and want to protect my kids from the harmful portion of social media. I plan to contact my senator.
Hi Allison - that's great news! Have you heard of EMF/ wireless radiation and its impact on our brain?
One wonders if the young people (or their parents) have ever heard of the “Off” button? If they think social media “use” is tough, wait until they have to deal with real life.
I’m completely in favor of a deep conversation around social media algorithms, corporate incentives, and technology design; but the last thing we need is “more government” as the basis of the answer. Have we not seen the damage of Common Core, or countless other sweeping “reforms” aimed at “the children”?
I do not believe in the “universal helplessness in the face of technology” mindset. I’m quite sure we can raise strong, competent and resilient young people who can handle technology, if we start talking about things like social norms, parenting technique, schooling, and public role models. I’m old enough to remember that people were requesting “government warnings” on music albums and music videos. But back then I didn’t have time to stare at the television and “be helplessly programmed” because I (like most of my friends) was working at after-school and summer jobs learning how to grow into an adult. Maybe we should talk about the difference in two generations of people who worked after school and learned from human interaction, versus after-school today, and the 24-year old “teenager” so scheduled by helicopter parents and formal settings they haven’t yet independently navigated the real world.
For all the memes shared on social media, I’m surprised that the supporters of these initiatives haven’t encountered the one that goes, “The most terrifying words in the English language are: I'm from the government and I'm here to help.”
Your theory about helicopter parents is absolutely correct, but this trend of over parenting coupled with addictive social media use is precisely John Haidt’s theory. Government intervention is often necessary to inform consumers about addictive/harmful products (i.e. cigarettes, alcohol)— why should addictive social media algorithms be treated any differently when aimed at children?
It was not necessary for alcohol and cigarettes to have "government" prohibits/warnings on them for my parents to have taken decent steps to raise two children responsibly in the presence of them. There is a prevalent tendency today to have "government solve all ills" and that's where I believe Mr. Haidt's argument risks going off on the wrong tangent. Let's discuss the challenges, by all means. But as someone who moved from 24/7 legislating in New England to a state where the government meets every other year for 120 days only, I'm definitely not in favor of letting the regulator answer this problem for us.
I think as a society, we’ve overwhelming failed children and teens on social media. Enough parents didn’t stand against it and probably didn’t understand it and now the government has to come in and regulate the tech companies. How will it turn out? We’ll have to see. But, tech companies employees shielded their own families and children from tech/social media, but not the public at large.
While my experience doesn't mirror this assessment (I know many well-adjusted and completely stable kids who use social media) I would agree that the issue could use attention and action taken to strengthen children's ability to navigate technology-integrated youth. If, as you say, the tech-companies' employees did a good job at shielding their own families from the dangers, then we should learn from that: They were obviously able to do it without the need for government prohibitions, warnings, restrictions or laws. In other words, the most effective answer, from the evidence at hand, is that this is a problem to be solved through parenting, not government. And the more we can do to support, educate and empower parents to do what tech-company parents did, the faster it will improve.
Not everyone has the ability to resist the dopamine cycle, work itself has its own dopamine cycle. Workaholics exist. The issue is that children do not have the structural neurological maturity to ensure they are able to participate in real world activities and resist online activities in a balanced way.
True - why it's so important to get the right light exposure first thing in the AM, as we can increase levels of dopamine, and restart the melatonin cycle of regeneration at Sunrise. Children need a fighting chance. Heck - our brains' neocortex isn't even developed until the age of 25-27!
Hello, Matthew. Thank you for pushing a bit here. The tensions among privacy, protection, and liberty have seldom been tested as much as with this particular issue. All layers of society have failed - policy, schools, parents, and the private sector.
Parents have delegated their authority to too many outside voices (author Angela Shrier explores this in Bad Therapy) and the private sector has shown insidious indifference toward minors.
I'm not sure if you're a father, but I'm curious about your thoughts related to our collective responsibilities as a society toward our children (and all vulnerable populations) when other layers are failing. Because not all children have the luxury of parents who have the time, energy, or ability to control the ubiquity of technology. Which often invites the need for some balanced policy to fill the void.
I'm reminded of the "attractive nuisance" doctrine, which I'm sure you're familiar with as a real estate expert. This idea that I'm liable if any child trespassing on my property is injured by an object that is likely to attract children. Smartphones in the pockets of every child today is like every family in a neighborhood having an unfenced pool. And our approach to devices is like telling those parents it's fully their responsibility to ensure their kids don't accidentally wander into a yard and drown.
It's nonsense, but that's what comes to my mind when we dismiss the need for any laws that fulfill our compelling interest to protect children from harm. Particularly those who don't have the type of parents you described growing up with. KOSA might not be the perfect answer. But something must be done.
Interesting perspectives, Chris. I appreciate you sharing them. In essence, I would take the exact opposite approach. First, I don't believe in "our collective responsibilities as a society toward our children (and all vulnerable populations) when other layers are failing" because I don't believe in collective responsibility; only individual responsibility. In the case of a parent/child, this leaves the management of technology to the family, not the society. I shudder to think what's possible when we let the "collective" decide how to raise someone's children. It's too dangerous that the "collective" would advocate for values, norms and practices that a certain family would find anathema. To wit, notice that recently "one collective" voted to put religious guidance into public schools, and another collective was upset. The case of smartphone technology is no different; One parent's permissiveness is another parent's prohibitions.
This is not to say that individuals and groups - such as yourself and like-minded - cannot *advocate* for your point of view - sharing through dialogue and discussion ways that parents might voluntarily adopt/adapt ideas and best practices to their own needs. But the ultimate luxury belief is that parents who don't have the "time, energy or ability" should have their responsibilities taken care of by "the collective." That's not the society I'd welcome at all.
We can advocate for fencing in pools; we can even legislate it as a precaution. But we ultimately cannot transfer the final responsibility for a parent's child safe to the neighbor. The government might even express a helpful impulse (even one enjoyed by all) to warn and advise the population. And we do, with plenty of laws limiting how businesses treat customers of all ages - and of younger ages, specifically. Beyond that, talks of banning things usually end up counterproductive, or invite further abuse. For every rule, three methods for circumventing it are devised by determined individuals. Surely, you smoked or drank or drove as a teen before you were "officially" permitted? No? Perhaps you watched a movie or read a book beyond the warning label or listen to albums that Tipper Gore cautioned were "explicit"?
Be cautious before thinking some have "dismiss[ed] the need for any laws." I don't think adding another page to the 81,405 pages of the Federal Register is going to make any difference. We're much better off advocate to the person directly responsible for purchasing, providing, provisioning and paying for the technology - and who absolutely can revoke possession of it: The parents who certainly see their children off to school and off to bed, and can readily handle this without requiring the "compelling interest of strangers" to invade their home and family.
I fully agree that something must be done: the difference is always -- by whom.
Thank you, Matthew. Good perspectives. I enjoy the banter as a sharpening tool for my thoughts. And you've shared them clearly and calmly, which I appreciate. I truly want the personal liberty approach. I want to allow laissez faire to dictate business decisions.
In my initial post, I wrote, "I'm not sure if you're a father...." because raising a child today creates a perspective that is almost impossible to fully acquire otherwise.
Childhood has always had risks. And we must allow some of those to be navigated by the child and his/her friends. Lest they know nothing of adversity. The mostly analog childhood that you and I likely enjoyed allowed intentional parents - like yours - to mostly mitigate the risk of egregious harm to children enough of the time.
Sure, a drink. Sure, a magazine or VHS. Sure, a spin around the parking lot. But these required intense planning, effort, and a flowchart to pull off if you had intentional parents.
And that's the difference today. Because the egregious harm is in the pocket. The egregious harm is on the same thing where you learn language arts. The egregious harm is on what dad uses for work with a VPN.
In my experience - both as a father to 3 tween boys and a teen daughter, and after thousands of conversations with parents globally, no amount of intentional parenting in the digital age brings the risk of egregious harm down to an acceptable level.
Unless you are homesteading, off the grid, disconnected from friends and family (including cousins), etc.
"I’m completely in favor of a deep conversation around social media algorithms, corporate incentives, and technology design" - Yes! But when they don't listen, then what? Section 230 disallows any acceptable level of liability deterrence. Product liability has always been the great constraint to irresponsible capitalism.
"We're much better off advocate to the person directly responsible for purchasing, providing, provisioning and paying for the technology" - Yes! But when the Verizon store won't do that, or Apple has nothing in their activation process that accurately informs parents of the risks, and App Stores have ignored their responsibility to age verify users and obtain parental consent before creating contracts with minors (which isn't allowed in the physical world), then what?
I desperately want a world where all layers: parents, companies, schools, and governments (in that order, top to bottom) adequately steward their duty of care toward children. And I 10000% agree that millions of parents need to grow a backbone and just need to say "no."
But in my opinion, even when parents do their part - and I have 100 stories - without companies and schools doing their job, the amount and intensity of harm that can still be wrought on my child is unacceptable, at least to me. Similar to the Enron/Sarbanes-Oxley days I lived through at EY, which created a framework, liability, and penalties, I'd like to see a child safe design framework adopted, Section 230 adjusted, a few surgical policies passed, and personal liability for executives & significant penalties for companies who ignore them.
When I read comments like these, I have no doubt you are not aware of what is targeted towards teens. It has nothing to do with if they can turn off their tech. It has everything to do with what they are exposed to. If you have not read the WSJ article on their exposé into creating accounts of teen age girls on instagram and the porn content they were served, you should. This is only a part of what our kids are facing. And trying to forbid kids from tech or loving your kids more to prevent such an issue is futile. This is what is in the zeitgeist. We regulate lots of things so kids do not easily have access to it - cigarettes, vaping devices, porn magazines, tattoos, tanning booths etc, tech is no different.
Agreed Matthew - this should be raising red flags for us everywhere. I believe social media and tech addiction, although very real, are red herrings for the true mode of addiction and assault, which is blue light and wireless radiation (EMF). What do you think about that?
I am not familiar with the science behind those claims; but it does not strike me as the pathway to the problem or solution.
Thanks for your reply Matthew. Basically blue light spikes and depletes dopamine as the melanopsin receptors in our eyes are destroyed, as retinol and other proteins in our eyes misfold due to hypoxia (lack of oxygen) and chronic stress from unbalanced, artificial light.
Current wireless safety limits are based on heat/thermal, however do not consider the mass of the iceberg, which are non-thermal and biological. All western govt safety standards are based on a mannequin with its head filled with fluid called SAM.
https://romanshapoval.substack.com/p/safetymyth
You don’t hear poetry as powerful as Shakespeare's in 15-second videos recorded in bedrooms.
You don’t learn that Shakespeare was an Italian woman in your university.
Yeah, I'm not sure if this was added as a "to be sure" to convince people that the author isn't just a social media scold, but...no. I will happily concede that Youtube is often shockingly useful. But none of the videos on drywall repair that I've benefited from are going to make it into a museum.
I don't disagree with the diagnosis; I disagree with the prescription. Parents can parent: buy their children flip phones with gps and texting; and teach their kids the advantages of interpersonal skills (over their peers who are stuck on their screens). Or many other things other than a government regulator's approach.
Children cannot resist many things in youth; that's what parenting is all about. My parents knew I would be hard pressed to resist caffeine, drugs, and alcohol. They used a variety of adult-children-based techniques to raise someone who was able to drink coffee, avoid drugs, drank responsibly.
The answer to everything is rarely invite the Congressman to do it for us, lest the wish to do it all for us.
Even if we disregard the Sisyphean cycle of moral panic around every new technology and the almost identical warnings that stretch back 2000 years, these apocalyptic talks might bear greater witness to the general impression of a collapsing world and an anxious generation than the actual changes on the ground. In other words, the worsening of good things are actually the improvement of bad things. Had the French society not “polarised” in the 18th century, people would continue to live in severe misery.
What we need to consider is that the Internet is blurring the distinction between private and public spheres. This has far-reaching ramifications in the social and political life of individuals and society. Basic assumptions about eg "identity," "normalcy," "gender," "family," and "truth" are called into question. This has significant impact on our perceptions of the nature of our reality, including self, mental health, moral issues and so on. Taboos and private issues are brought into the public to be discussed and redefined. Of course this gives the impression of a lot of awfulness.
Nota bene: I am not saying the Internet is completely unproblematic, but it's a highly complex topic with deep-rooted structural problems that require more analysis than mere statistics. Rather than looking at what the Internet does to society and people, we need to look at what it may be exposing about them. In other words, children and youth's relationship with society and its social illnesses (appearance and body, status, success, upbringing, and violence) as mediated by the Internet.
While I can't fully disagree with this particular post's argument as of now, I did submit a dissenting opinion several months ago (https://open.substack.com/pub/afoolscholar/p/the-internet-quandary?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android&r=agzkv). I'd love to hear any responses anyone has to it, particularly if they disagree!
I think an online safety bill is a great proposal, but seems like a really difficult problem to not become overly authoritarian. However, regulating feeds to become more personalized is a great idea. Super intriguing and seems like it has potential. Social media is so new, regulation seems inevitable but also completely necessary.
I’ve noticed many in this comment thread say to rely on parents to regulate. It is almost as if many people live in a bubble. There are one hand the parents who try, but are not home to police their children and then the other hand: bad parents who allow their children whatever. At this point, the government is stepping in to help those groups. Of course this won’t solve 100% of the problem but it can wake some people up and help others.
Thank you for your efforts!!
Having trouble finding teens who find social media positive? Try the Pew 2022 survey of 1,316 teens:
https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/04/24/teens-and-social-media-key-findings-from-pew-research-center-surveys/#:~:text=Majorities%20of%20teens%20report%20ever%20using%20YouTube%2C%20TikTok%2C,4%2C%202022%2C%20that%20asked%20about%2010%20online%20platforms.
Teens were 3.5 times more likely to rate social media as having a positive effect (32%) than a negative effect (9%) on their lives -- with 59% saying it had neither. "Majorities of teens report experiencing each of the four positive experiences asked about: feeling more connected to what is going on in their friends’ lives (80%), like they have a place where they can show their creative side (71%), like they have people who can support them through tough times (67%), and that they are more accepted (58%)."
The CDC's 2021 survey also shows teen social media users are much less likely to attempt suicide or self-harm than teens who rarely or never use social media. I'm all for helping the 9% of teens who find their experiences negative avoid social media, as well as eliminating platforms' gross commercial exploitation of all ages. But there should be no restrictions on online access for teens of any age. Adolescents' judgment is much better than that of all the interest groups who can't even acknowledge basic realities and challenges young people face, including dealing with increasingly troubled adult generations.
I have been following KoSA and was not able to find out what the LGBTQ+ orgs were trying to change. NCOSE was not transparent. If you are a parent and have a kid in the TQ+ alphabet, you are well aware of the grooming and indoctrination that happens online. Read PITT articles. Groups of parents are trying to get their kids off the internet to break the bond with the TQ+ cult trying to save their kids- many are going to the lengths of planning trips overseas where scenes to the internet is severely curbed.
While this is a good step, I don’t think it really solves the problem. Here’s why - there are private parties, not tech companies or social media platforms, who are intentionally targeting vulnerable young people online. The primary example of this is Tumblr. While Tumblr does have the ability to suggest content, most users don’t use this feature. They search for content about something that interests them and follow people who post that content. When those users repost other people’s content, they then choose to follow those other people, slowly building the set of users they follow. Any account on Tumblr can then post content about topics that are interesting to young people to entice them to follow, then intersperse that content with propaganda and extremist views. This is happening on multiple platforms, but Tumblr seems to be one of the worst, possibly because it doesn’t have a strongly controlled algorithm suggesting content. At least when social media companies are pushing certain content we know their motive - to keep users engaged and viewing ads. Not so with private parties - their motives may be shadier, including foreign governments working to destroy western nations or traffickers priming kids to reject their families and leave home to meet with strangers. Eliminating algorithms does nothing to prevent this and may even make platforms more vulnerable to manipulation by private parties since now all of a user’s content, not just some of it, is controlled by strangers whose motives are unknown.
This is how people get sucked into incel and QAnon and other cult-like online communities. It’s not platforms that are pushing this stuff.
We don’t need government doing our parenting for us.
I hope this passes. Where America goes, Canada and other countries are sure to follow.