Our problem with limiting addictive things online (whether it's porn or gambling of social media) has never been technical but political.
I helped develop the first generation of Internet apps in Silicon Valley in the late 90's. Interactive websites were all custom written for specific clients. We (the programmers) were already strategizing ways to control online porn in 1997, and we came up with lots of them. The geeks (who consume a lot of porn but often wish they didn't) have known how to do it since the beginning. But the C-suite men (who also consume a lot of porn but care about money more than virtue) weren't interested. And the few C-suite women had convinced themselves that porn was female empowerment.
10 years later, I was out of the business, but still socially involved. We (the geeks) could all see the problems with Facebook from the beginning, although I don't know anyone who realized how addictive it would be (comparable to pornography, essentially online heroin.) But compared to limiting porn, limiting social media isn't even "low hanging fruit". It's fruit sitting on the ground!
Bottom line, from a long-time programming geek, I second that age-gating and limiting access to adults is absolutely technically doable. And it's so easy that anyone who says otherwise isn't an idiot but a liar. The only thing standing in the way is, and always has been, political will and John Stuart Mill's ghost.
Care to elaborate on what those "collective boundaries" would be? If you mean what I think you mean, which would actually turn the back to before even John Locke, it would simply make everyone less free, with no objective overarching benefit to anyone but the ruling class (and even the latter is debatable).
It depends on how you define "free". If you mean "the right to do whatever you want without external constraint" (which is Mill's definition) then you're right. But that's a historically weird definition. Even John Locke wouldn't accept it, although he unintentionally seeded it, and certainly none of the Medievals or Ancients would.
At a high level, I believe states and localities (not the feds) can establish standards of behavior and enforce them. Maximal individual autonomy takes a back seat to democratic will. Can this be taken too far? Sure. But our problem today isn't tyranny of the majority; it's tyranny of the minority, as ever smaller and smaller victim classes demand society be reorganized to accommodate their "freedom".
So, specifics... Blue laws. Sunday hours restrictions. (Or maybe Fridays in Dearborn.) Drug and prostitution restrictions or permission. Most restrictions would likely be minor, but even major differences must be accepted: So CA and NY can seize the children of parents who refuse to slice off their boobs and Kansas can imprison parents who try. NE wants to criminalize abortion and NY wants to subsidize it. Letting local democracy work is messy, but if you don't live there, don't whine. And if you do live there, you're welcome to move. As I suspect many people would, and that would be healthy, because...
Freedom of association has to be restored. The 16th Amendment and the Civil Rights Act effectively eviscerated it, but that's the most efficient mechanism for the social enforcement of virtue or standards. If I have absolute rights all the way to your nose (as Mill would say), you end up with an ever larger state policing an ever growing set of conflicts between rights and noses. Far better to just let people say "I don't want to do business with or be around you" to those they find abhorrent. America is a very large place, and our federal structure is extremely well suited to handle these sorts of pluralistic problems, problems that occur when diversity crosses into irreconcilable difference. But that requires a real commitment to tolerance (in the Lockean sense rather than the modern one.)
The late, great Peter McWilliams would beg to differ. And he makes some excellent points to the contrary in his magnum opus, "Ain't Nobody's Business If You Do".
Localized and privatized tyranny is still tyranny.
(And when you said 16th Amendment, I think you meant to say the 14th.)
I don't know McWilliams, but Mill would agree with your statement completely. The opening paragraph of On Liberty: "the only purpose for which power (compulsion and control, whether the means used be physical force in the form of legal penalties, or the moral coercion of public opinion) can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others."
So you're a Millian. I don't fault you for it. I just think it's a cultural dead end. Society's first job is to create, raise, and acculturate the next generation. Any culture is religious (hence its root "cult"), a collective definition of right and wrong, sacred and profane. Mill precludes that since his Harm Principle (and its corollary of maximal individual autonomy) must always come before any such definition. Hence: cultural dead end.
I want to be wrong here. I really do. But I'm hardly the first guy to articulate this.
As a parent, I can attest to the difficulty in constantly monitoring and attempting to figure out how to limit my children’s access to the internet and specific content. It’s hard, and complicated! I’m often jealous of my parents because when I was being raised, society absorbed some of that burden by regulating what was on TV, the radio, and in the movies. You had to be pretty stealthy if you wanted to sneak into an R rated movie, let alone if you wanted to see pornography. Now, kids can just accidentally stumble upon porn that would make even the most sexually progressive amongst us blush. I still support parental responsibility, I’m just saying a little help from society in the realm of the internet would be nice.
I’m not sure I agree that the first job of any society is to produce offspring. That’s certainly number 1 on evolutions “to do” list but I like to think human society is more than just surviving and reproducing. But yes, passing on knowledge, culture, wisdom, and traditions to next generations is crucial. So much so that humans are only 1 of a few species that live past reproductive age! Id also agree that the old saying “it takes a village to raise a child” reflects the importance of collective effort in child rearing. But it was glorification of the nuclear family that disrupted the multi generational family living that was common through out most of human history. Then there’s the cultural shift towards mistrust where parents feel unable to relinquish control over their children to teachers, coaches, neighbors, and even grandparents. All that has made parenting lonely and more difficult! I say all this with the awareness that I’m waxing nostalgic for a more collective time in history while living a life full of advantages brought by the rise of individualism. Individualism gave us all the freedoms and liberties of the civil rights and women’s rights movements. So, yes I do feel liberated and I’m thankful for that. I’m certainly not suggesting I’d be better off living in a collective society where my individual freedoms are restricted, just that it would be nice to have some help.
Indeed, Kerry, what you are describing that you want would actually be more or less a Matriarchy, NOT a patriarchy like Brian waxes nostalgic for. And that was the norm before men took over in the Bronze Age, and will return again after patriarchy finally collapses soon.
Under patriarchy, it has always been more or less a false tradeoff and false choice between liberty and community, as the system is rigged that way. Not so under Matriarchy.
And of course, the "everybody must procreate" mentality is every bit as outdated, outmoded, and specious as the notion that "everybody must work for a living".
The first job of every human society is to produce, raise, and acculturate the next generation. Millennia ago, humans realized this task is best accomplished within family units. Functional societies therefore have always promoted family formation and helped parents raise functional children by social and legal guardrails -- "it takes a village" isn't wrong. Ours stopped doing both of these around 1970 in the name of liberation.
You're right, you shouldn't have to do it yourself. But courtesy Mill, Nietzsche, the postmodernists, and the Sexual Revolution, Western societies refuse to help promote virtue or have standards. Don't you feel liberated?
As a rule, whenever a market is deemed toxic, the government steps in to regulate. How to define toxic/noxious markets? Castro and Pham laid out an excellent 4 point scale - does something decrease agency, increase vulnerability, harm individuals and harm communities? Historically any product or market that ranks highly on any ONE of these scales is regulated by the government.
Yet social media and other attention economy apps rank highly on all 4 scales.
It is astounding to me how many media commentators, social welfare organizations and advocacy groups, even educators are willing to carry water for the big tech and social media companies. It would be inconceivable for any organization to advocate for teenage drinking or gambling, given the toxicity of those products.
I’m glad Australia has ripped the bandaid off and placed the onus back on the social media companies. All the hand wringing about mechanisms and costs are beside the point. Meta has been making Billion$ off a flawed product and market. If they can’t figure out how to age gate and maintain profitability, so what? That’s zuckerbergs problem, not ours. Toxic markets don’t have an inevitable right to make money.
This is a great test, Mike. I have a degree in econ and I've never heard of it before, but I love it. Our modern world wants everything to be measurable. This test takes the qualitative "this is bad" sense (which we have incorrectly trained ourselves to ignore as unreliable) and quantifies it, thus making it digestible to our modern (left-brain skewed) minds.
Most things that are toxic to adults are regulated. Some more heavily than others, and mostly as a mechanism to collect taxes. But yes, gambling, the sale and distribution of alcohol/nicotine/weed, vehicle ownership and operation. With the exception of firearms in the US, things that are shown to cause harm to individuals and communities are tightly regulated, and we seem to be just fine.
An absolutely trivial way to implement age gating would be to do it at a device level. A parent just has to set a device to "minor" status, and then whenever that device accesses a service its communication is flagged as associated with a minor. This would require some coordination between device companies and service companies, but the technical barrier to implementing something like this would be very low if the companies were motivated.
Of course, this could be circumvented by children buying their own devices, or pressuring their parents to register those devices as "adult" devices, just like any age-gating technology could be circumvented by the use of fake, stole, or borrowed ID's, but as far as the tradeoff of investment, security, and effectiveness goes, this avenue seems like a no-brainer to me.
Not really trivial, in a technical sense. Both Android and iOS would need to be changed to support a phone being in minor mode, and this setting would need to survive factory resets, but also not permanently impair the device. I guess the devices could be sold as permanent children’s devices, and require them to be replaced when the user ages. Since social media can work in a browser, the is-a-minor flag would need to be added to the internet protocol for logging in (it can’t just be at account creation since the account can be created on another device, or library PC). And I’m sure that soon after introduction of these devices, someone will make a VPN app which will be able to strip out the is-a-minor flag. App stores controlled by the makers could prohibit these, but the FTC is trying to force companies to allow third party app loading and Android already allows side loading apps.
If these technical hurdles can be overcome, then this to me is the best solution since it doesn’t require action by every adult device user. But it’s mostly available now on existing devices as parental controls like Screen Time on iPhones, but I’m sure kids already have ways of bypassing it.
From Peter Phelps in Sydney, Australia on our hapless world-first attempt at social media gating: "Things you can do in NSW (an Australian state) if you are under 16: Learn to fly an aeroplane; Possess and use a firearm; Drive at 80kph in a Go-Kart; Captain any non-commercial boat up to 20kts; Own a speargun for recreational fishing; Abseiling; Scuba diving; Join the Australian Army Cadet corps; Drag racing; Change your sex.
Things that you now can't do: Twitter/X; Facebook; Instagram; TikTok.
There's so much wrong with the ban it is hard to know where to begin."
What needs to be added (which the hapless MSM missed) on the Australian U16s social media ban is that we all (including us adults) have to sign up to a Digital ID to prove our age (CCP-style) & the government has admitted we will be tracked, monitored and dissenters punished. It was a Trojan horse. The teenagers will find a way to get around it. An Orwellian world is just around the corner.
And in the US states that plan on similar laws, setting it at 18, it will create a bizarre situation that one could be old enough to get *married*(less than 18 in some states still), but too young to post their wedding on FB or any other social media.
ScarlettHamiltonAustralia - I think the examples cited by Peter Phelps are all great arguments in favor social media regulation, not against it as you suggest.
When I was 15, almost 16, getting my PADI scuba license in Northern NSW, I had to do coursework and supervised dives of increasing complexity before I was given the license that let me go out diving. I believe there was an age eligibility imposed (maybe 15) - before that age I was considered too young to engage with the activity in a safe enough manner. There was a rigorous training framework, set up to help a neophyte avoid the most common and avoidable dangers that could arise from SCUBA diving, that allowed the stepwise, deliberate accumulation of skills to avoid injury, death, or damage to delicate eco-systems. One of the most important skills we learned was how to time a dive to avoid irreversible damage.
Social Media has none of this. The same full featured product designed for adults is rolled out to any age user, without full transparency of what data will be collected and served, without any training on how to stay safe, with no limits on how long one should use it, no parental consent requested or required, and no self limiting external factors applied (like those that exist in literally every one of the other examples you sight. You think a 14 year old can just "change their sex" (whatever that means) from the sofa in the living room?).
All the examples you give have regulations, trained supervision, and barriers to entry that social media should have had from the start. The social media companies chose to ignore the damage they were doing to kids in order to grow at all costs, and now they are being called to the carpet. It should have happened a decade ago, at least it's happening now.
And if you're really worried about the government tracking you, I have some bad news about drivers licenses, professional licenses, tax returns, car registrations, insurance policies, and property records.
"Age gated" cultures, led by the United States, are the most dangerous for both adults and youth on the planet. The USA consistently ranks by far the most hazardous of Western nations (as well as worse than most second-world nations) for drugs, alcohol, guns, violence, crime, suicide, homicide, and other ills, with 30- and 40-aged adults consistently endangering themselves and their children with irresponsible behaviors.
Why is this? By requiring no other evidence of responsibility than age, the USA promotes dangerous behaviors among adults -- grownup gun-death rates 4 times higher, overdose rates 6 times higher, etc., than in other Western countries -- which then become taboo to discuss. (The biggest single reason guns are the leading cause of death among American youth is because American adults shoot them, for example.)
Today, American teenagers are much more mature and responsible than American grownups by nearly every measurable index, but they will become more risk-prone as they age into their late 20s, 30s, and 40s, CDC and public health statistics show. That is because the USA allows grossly irresponsible behaviors by adults.
Responsible, safer cultures impose severe standards on adult behaviors and more freedom for young people to participate, not arbitrary age limits. The biggest danger to young people's mental and physical well-being is not social media, but troubled behaviors and abuses inflicted by grownups in their families, the 2021 and 2023 CDC surveys and analyses (and others) clearly show. Of course we grownups love age limits, since they flatter us and allow freedoms without responsibility based solely on age. But they endanger us and our kids, and it's time we recognized that they don't work.
I agree that virtue is sorely lacking among American adults. We could really benefit from exorcising the ghost of John Stuart Mill and channeling Aristotle in his place for a while. But that's a huge undertaking that requires overturning most of the philosophical foundation of the modern Western world.
In the meantime, I'd like some age gating to keep the young from being further drawn into the rabbit hole of "if it feels good, do it".
Which Aristotle? The one who didn't exactly believe in women's rights (or even any individual rights for that matter), and was totally cool with slavery? That Aristotle?
Aristotle has an internally coherent system of virtue ethics that doesn't require Christianity. I would prefer Aquinas or even Calvin, but I don't see either of them as viable options. Nietzsche was right: we've killed God.
Any system of pagan ethics is going to really suck for women and children; you're right about that. But as I tell my students, Enlightenment individual rights only make sense in an active, monotheistic framework -- "all men are created equal" is nonsensical without "man made in the image of God". If you're just a smart ape or a random combination of chemicals, who gave you those rights? Apes (regardless of how smart) are governed not by natural law but by jungle law, and the jungle is an even worse place for women and kids.
So while Aristotle wouldn't be my first choice, he's the one I think most available at the moment.
This is an intriguing counter argument and I’d agree that blanket abstinence only tactics on things like drugs and alcohol have a backfiring effect making them more desirable. A shift in cultural attitudes similar to more lax countries would probably be beneficial. I’d even agree the drinking age should be lowered to 18. However, I think the argument being made is that social media is inherently different than these other issues. And I don’t think the article argues for blanket abstinence, but sensible limitations, and points out many other areas we all agree where children need limitations. Finally, I disagree that teenagers today are more mature and responsible because of the research showing teens are reaching age related milestones much later than previous generations.
The fact that that young people are reaching traditional age-related milestones later compared to previous generations is a trend that began many generations ago as a result of broader social, economic, and cultural changes both nationally and globally, not all of which are negative. It's a mixed bag. And ironically, some of this delaying is in fact a direct result of raising age limits, as well as safetyism jumping the shark in general. Holding today's young people to the same standards as previous generations, often selectively, is thus a major category error, and thus not a valid reason to curtail their civil and human rights (which will only infantilize them even further, in a vicious cycle).
Mike - do adults act irresponsibly at times? Of course. That is no argument to do away w age gating of potentially or certainly harmful activities ranging from driving to gambling. Younger people are both poor at evaluating risks, as well as developing neural pathways that are likely to turn into lifelong habits. Age of first use is a powerful developmental concept, and delaying the age of first use/experience as having protective value is well documented. An example, someone who uses nicotine as a young teen is far more likely to smoke/vape as an adult than someone who avoids nicotine until late adolescence.
These responses raise some great points. First, I argue for no age limits on social media because its buffered environment is vastly safer than the offline world, and it is crucial for information, expression, contacts, and vital space not supervised by adults where today's alarming roster of abused youth can seek contacts and help. Look at Jonathan Haidt’s most recent post on Australia’s frankly silly roster of the “harms” of social media: in 6 MONTHS’ time, under-16s reported far FEWER harms online (most easily solvable with keypad tabs) than most encounter in a SINGLE DAY in the outside world.
Second, having said that, I also agree with Haidt that children and teens (all of us) should spend more unsupervised time outdoors. That’s why I also advocate far fewer and more transitional outside-world “age-gatings” (what an awful term). The safest cultures are “age-integrated” rather than age-gated. The drinking cultures of Mediterranean tier countries, where children experience alcohol early in transitional fashion and open-age pubs and discos predominate over bars, are much safer than those of over-21 cultures to the north. Only countries whose adults are grossly irresponsible – like ours – demand absolute teen abstinence (to stop American youths from acting like American adults).
Third, I see the Gen Z revolution is not common knowledge. How many know the "teenager" of 2024 is NOTHING like the "teenager" of 1990 or 1970? Crime by teens has plummeted by 90% over the last generation; teens’ unplanned pregnancy and school dropout have plunged by 75-80%; even amid a rampant opioid epidemic, persons under age 20 comprise fewer than 2% of overdose deaths; etc.? Now that 16-year-olds bail their 40-aged parents out of jail and visit them in rehab much more than the other way around, shouldn’t any “age-gating” go the other way? Maximum rather than minimum ages for rights?
Fourth, Gen Z is achieving what past generations call “adult milestones” later for imposed and evolved reasons, not immaturity. One reason, for things like driving, is pointless age-gatings like teen-driving laws and curfews (which long-term studies prove worthless). Another is that greedy elders cut our taxes, allowed wealth hoarding, and forced huge debt on Gen Z for education (even so, Gen Z is more likely to go to college), buying a house, and achieving economic stability. While Gen Z’s delay in childbearing partly relates to economics, Gen Z may be wisely realizing their generation can't count on today's grownups and must avoid getting trapped in traditional choices.
Finally, truly grownup societies recognize behaviors don’t “start” in youth; they are circular. Three-fourths of teens today have parents and grownups around them suffering mental health, alcohol, drug, crime, and abuse issues (“adverse experiences” the CDC associates with two-thirds of teen’s depression and 90% of suicide attempts). America’s reliance on age-gating is a big reason our social policies fail disastrously. The reckless, impulsive “teen brain” claims popular 10-20 years ago have been debunked by the discrediting of neural scannings and solid evidence that teen risks are driven by environments (poverty, family, toxins like lead), not brain development.
The 25-50-year-old has replaced 15-24 as America’s “high risk” age. I regret that my field, social science, remains 30 years behind the times in perpetrating backwards views on adolescence and adulthood. What are you paying us for?
Delaying age at first use seems to have a point of diminishing returns though. See how adults behave in Denmark (very permissive towards youth) vs Iceland (very restrictive towards youth), for example.
Thank you, Dr. Galloway. Of course it's possible. Of course they know how to do it. Of course they know who the minors are. Otherwise, how would they know what they're potentially losing out on? CDA 230 IS the elephant in the room. Liability has always been the great constraint to irresponsible capitalism. Congress carved out these 26 words. The courts have misinterpreted these 26 words. It's now time for a CDA 230 sunset and reset for 2024's digital environment.
All I can say is, be VERY careful what you wish for. Repealing Section 230 outright would not only not solve anything (Australia, for example, has no such equivalent, and yet still has had plenty of problems with social media, or else passing their new law would have been a political nonstarter), but in a society as litigious as the USA, would have a far-reaching chilling effect on free speech and the free exchange of ideas. It's throwing out the baby with the bathwater.
Even Scott Galloway himself takes a more measured and nuanced approach to Section 230 reform rather than outright repeal.
Excellent Chris, straight to the problem of this problem. The obsolete Section 230. "Liability has always been the great constraint to irresponsible capitalism". Sometimes I wonder if the safety standards approach applied to Big Tech and same tolerance for the millions of children dead or maimed across the planet (and more human catastrophes) was applied to aviation industry what would be flying like today...
How would YOU like to be held vicariously liable for the comments that other people leave on your blog posts? Repealing Section 230 outright would make that possible. So be VERY careful what you wish for!
Reform is one thing, outright repeal is another. Even Galloway himself has made that distinction in some of his other blog posts.
Hello RWBS! Thank you for your comment. You nailed it, it was never a matter of Freedom of Speech, it was a matter of protecting the bunch of nerds trying to launch a new economy. Context is king: in those days there were only 8% of Americans online and even less from the rest of the world. The Internet, got larger, many new products appeared, along with persuasive addictive technology thus creating a plethora of new threats to the NOW millions digital illiterates consumers including children, but that Section 230 has remained untouched (and later was skilfully instrumentalized by Big Tech). It's a little bit like if we would still regulate traffic and automotive today with the same rules of when there were only 10 cars in a town and 2 car accidents a month because the more accidents there are the greater the profit. Of course if automotive had the fire power of Big Tech in terms of addiction, rich lobbists, and users manipulation :) we probably would. Seriously, we know better. Maya Angelou said "when you know better, you do better". If we give up the notion that commercial actors must operate within the rule of law to what kind of society are we actually saying yes to? What I know for sure is that the world was a much better place before Section 230.
If parents are so concerned, they can simply refuse to give their children smart phones or do a better job monitoring/restricting their online activity.
I completely understand the fear of digital IDs. It's clearly a preferred avenue for agencies and a clever totalitarian slippery slope to be expanded on or utilized nefariously. I'm with you.
How would you feel about phones specifically for kids that have pre-installed parental control features to allow parents to more easily monitor and restrict their online activity? What if governments subsidized these phones to incentivize them for parents? Maybe not even government subsidies, but charitable organizations funded largely by corporate donors.
Unfortunately, parents and their kids are caught in a "collective action trap". The social part of social media. Unilateral action to do away with social media carries significant costs. Adolescents are wired to be extremely sensitive to these costs. The social media companies have been very intentional in designing their platforms to exploit these (and other) psychological vulnerabilities. In much the same way the tobacco companies use the exploit of nicotine addiction.
Social media companies now have a choice. Design products that are safer for users, or require digital IDs or other dystopian measures that some subset of users will find so distasteful that they disconnect. I wouldn't bet on the safer product path being the one they choose.
The collective action trap applies to all ages, not just people under 16 (or 18 or 21 or whatever arbitrary age limit that our "betters" choose to set). Age gating only kicks the proverbial can down the road at best, while putting young people at an unfair disadvantage relative to adults. It's like having a designated peeing section (or peeing age limit perhaps) in a swimming pool. If we want collective solutions, we need to go collectively all the way, or else leave individuals to their own devices, pun intended of course.
We have analogs in substance use - the difference in outcomes for someone who first uses tobacco, at age 13 vs someone whose first use is age 19 are very different. The American lung assoc. estimates that almost 90% of adults who smoke daily smoked before age 18.
Similarly if we delay first use of social media from 10, 12, 14 to the age of 16, we will help a lot of users avoid some of the worst outcomes. Not eliminate, but reduce. There is already good research supporting the idea that social media users who start using before the age of 13 suffer worse outcomes than their peers at 16. There is evidence for this ban, it's not arbitrary.
Such a concept probably has a kernel of truth, but still remains rather controversial despite the apparent pseudo-consensus on the matter. There is also reverse causation and confounding as well. Delaying may very well have some value, but is hardly the silver bullet its advocates claim it is, especially when it comes to things like social media. Eventually you reach a point of diminishing returns, and comes with it's own costs too, so it is a very delicate balancing act.
It feels to me that we are doing society and kids a disservice by narrowing the conversation about the dangers of phones to social media. What about ubiquitous data tracking that smart phones allow through apps like Google maps and specific apps to track your kids? What about all the cognitive assessment that goes on in apps designed to help kids with math skills or reading or to learn to type or organize themselves? Where does all that data get stored? One a device or account requires verification with a bio-ID system then all of that data can be stored and linked to that kid. Will companies like Palantir let that opportunity go to waste?
Do we want our kids to know how to do analog life before they get co-opted into the digital realm? If so then the answer to protecting kids must be to have a hard age limit on kids having their own smart phone until they are 16 or 18.
There can be phones for kids that have no data collection potential on them. Parents can have access to their location but that location data needs to be protected and not stored or accessed by any other app or federal agency or private company.
We are being bamboozled by limited focus threats leading us down the garden path to a biometric electronic ID verification system. Once it is in place for kids being mandatory for adults will soon follow. The truth is that our phone numbers are already being used for that. But what we really should be concerned about and asking for legislation to protect us our data and our kids data and their right to grow up as human beings and not digital “product”.
You're spot on. The discussion is starting with social media/smartphones for kids, but that's just the first symptom being addressed. This ban on youth social media use is like requiring TB patients to not spit blood in the street. The pathology goes much, much deeper.
We permitted the hate filled maniacs who run the p industry to insinuate themselves into our boys' conversations about sex with their freinds. A part of every boys growing up now. How dare they. The bastards. How is Galloway so complacent about this. Its so awful no one sees this.
Thing is, literally all of the bad things about social media are true for ALL ages, NOT just young people below some arbitrary age limit (and ANY age you choose is arbitrary, pick your poison). And social media also has significant benefits for young people as well. So let's not throw out the baby with the bathwater now.
True, teens often do act like idiots. As do many adults as well. And honestly, compared to the adults around them, teens really aren't so bad on average. Case in point: X, formerly known as Twitter, is primarily used by adults over 18, often much older, and yet has become an absolute cesspool in recent years, far worse than Instagram or TikTok have ever been.
“Why do modern societies impose minimum legal ages for many activities and products, such as drinking, smoking, gambling, porn, driving, skydiving, or watching R or X-rated movies” … yet permit sex change mutilations of the same aged kids?
Very strange to bring up a medical procedure that does have minimum age requirements as well as extensive professional consultation. Everything on that list broadly affects EVERYONE, where your non sequitur is an infinitesimal minority population I doubt you can even place a number beside.
Online gambling/betting sites have implemented highly effective age-gating systems with very little trouble or fanfare.
If they can do it, then socials and porn sites can, too. Zero possible excuse—especially for porn sites, whose consumers have absolutely no reasonable rationale to conceal the types of personal information that are used for age verification.
If any society out there is civilized enough with a decent enough legislature to enact laws requiring this, with actual teeth (long prison terms for executives, and/or fines large enough to bankrupt/destroy the business, etc), we'll see these sites "suddenly discover" quick and easy ways to implement age gating.
Maybe I will tell social media that I am under 16 even though I am 62. I don't want to see graphic sex or violence. There are websites for that if you really want to see that. I vehemently object to the government telling us what to do. That's what parents are for. I find it fascinating that people are all for social media bans and injecting their kids with poison but have no interest in taking responsibility for themselves and their kids. Social media seems able to restrict my modest comments on society or telling the the truth about climate change, health or other things that are easily evidenced, etc but somehow can't find the offensive content or the bullies and pedos. We are all subject to the temptations of addiction. Kids have to learn to manage that in a safe way too. Banning kids from SM wont help them adjust to a world full of those temptations and toxic ways of dealing with stress. We should be teaching kids healthy ways to deal with stress - not just putting a band aid on the problem.
Our problem with limiting addictive things online (whether it's porn or gambling of social media) has never been technical but political.
I helped develop the first generation of Internet apps in Silicon Valley in the late 90's. Interactive websites were all custom written for specific clients. We (the programmers) were already strategizing ways to control online porn in 1997, and we came up with lots of them. The geeks (who consume a lot of porn but often wish they didn't) have known how to do it since the beginning. But the C-suite men (who also consume a lot of porn but care about money more than virtue) weren't interested. And the few C-suite women had convinced themselves that porn was female empowerment.
10 years later, I was out of the business, but still socially involved. We (the geeks) could all see the problems with Facebook from the beginning, although I don't know anyone who realized how addictive it would be (comparable to pornography, essentially online heroin.) But compared to limiting porn, limiting social media isn't even "low hanging fruit". It's fruit sitting on the ground!
Bottom line, from a long-time programming geek, I second that age-gating and limiting access to adults is absolutely technically doable. And it's so easy that anyone who says otherwise isn't an idiot but a liar. The only thing standing in the way is, and always has been, political will and John Stuart Mill's ghost.
You seem to really dislike John Stuart Mill for some reason.
I believe Mill's Harm Principle is stopping us from enacting collective boundaries that would be beneficial to our entire society.
Care to elaborate on what those "collective boundaries" would be? If you mean what I think you mean, which would actually turn the back to before even John Locke, it would simply make everyone less free, with no objective overarching benefit to anyone but the ruling class (and even the latter is debatable).
It depends on how you define "free". If you mean "the right to do whatever you want without external constraint" (which is Mill's definition) then you're right. But that's a historically weird definition. Even John Locke wouldn't accept it, although he unintentionally seeded it, and certainly none of the Medievals or Ancients would.
At a high level, I believe states and localities (not the feds) can establish standards of behavior and enforce them. Maximal individual autonomy takes a back seat to democratic will. Can this be taken too far? Sure. But our problem today isn't tyranny of the majority; it's tyranny of the minority, as ever smaller and smaller victim classes demand society be reorganized to accommodate their "freedom".
So, specifics... Blue laws. Sunday hours restrictions. (Or maybe Fridays in Dearborn.) Drug and prostitution restrictions or permission. Most restrictions would likely be minor, but even major differences must be accepted: So CA and NY can seize the children of parents who refuse to slice off their boobs and Kansas can imprison parents who try. NE wants to criminalize abortion and NY wants to subsidize it. Letting local democracy work is messy, but if you don't live there, don't whine. And if you do live there, you're welcome to move. As I suspect many people would, and that would be healthy, because...
Freedom of association has to be restored. The 16th Amendment and the Civil Rights Act effectively eviscerated it, but that's the most efficient mechanism for the social enforcement of virtue or standards. If I have absolute rights all the way to your nose (as Mill would say), you end up with an ever larger state policing an ever growing set of conflicts between rights and noses. Far better to just let people say "I don't want to do business with or be around you" to those they find abhorrent. America is a very large place, and our federal structure is extremely well suited to handle these sorts of pluralistic problems, problems that occur when diversity crosses into irreconcilable difference. But that requires a real commitment to tolerance (in the Lockean sense rather than the modern one.)
The late, great Peter McWilliams would beg to differ. And he makes some excellent points to the contrary in his magnum opus, "Ain't Nobody's Business If You Do".
Localized and privatized tyranny is still tyranny.
(And when you said 16th Amendment, I think you meant to say the 14th.)
I don't know McWilliams, but Mill would agree with your statement completely. The opening paragraph of On Liberty: "the only purpose for which power (compulsion and control, whether the means used be physical force in the form of legal penalties, or the moral coercion of public opinion) can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others."
So you're a Millian. I don't fault you for it. I just think it's a cultural dead end. Society's first job is to create, raise, and acculturate the next generation. Any culture is religious (hence its root "cult"), a collective definition of right and wrong, sacred and profane. Mill precludes that since his Harm Principle (and its corollary of maximal individual autonomy) must always come before any such definition. Hence: cultural dead end.
I want to be wrong here. I really do. But I'm hardly the first guy to articulate this.
Nice to read a comment from someone who is knowledgeable about the field. Thanks.
As a parent, I can attest to the difficulty in constantly monitoring and attempting to figure out how to limit my children’s access to the internet and specific content. It’s hard, and complicated! I’m often jealous of my parents because when I was being raised, society absorbed some of that burden by regulating what was on TV, the radio, and in the movies. You had to be pretty stealthy if you wanted to sneak into an R rated movie, let alone if you wanted to see pornography. Now, kids can just accidentally stumble upon porn that would make even the most sexually progressive amongst us blush. I still support parental responsibility, I’m just saying a little help from society in the realm of the internet would be nice.
I’m not sure I agree that the first job of any society is to produce offspring. That’s certainly number 1 on evolutions “to do” list but I like to think human society is more than just surviving and reproducing. But yes, passing on knowledge, culture, wisdom, and traditions to next generations is crucial. So much so that humans are only 1 of a few species that live past reproductive age! Id also agree that the old saying “it takes a village to raise a child” reflects the importance of collective effort in child rearing. But it was glorification of the nuclear family that disrupted the multi generational family living that was common through out most of human history. Then there’s the cultural shift towards mistrust where parents feel unable to relinquish control over their children to teachers, coaches, neighbors, and even grandparents. All that has made parenting lonely and more difficult! I say all this with the awareness that I’m waxing nostalgic for a more collective time in history while living a life full of advantages brought by the rise of individualism. Individualism gave us all the freedoms and liberties of the civil rights and women’s rights movements. So, yes I do feel liberated and I’m thankful for that. I’m certainly not suggesting I’d be better off living in a collective society where my individual freedoms are restricted, just that it would be nice to have some help.
Indeed, Kerry, what you are describing that you want would actually be more or less a Matriarchy, NOT a patriarchy like Brian waxes nostalgic for. And that was the norm before men took over in the Bronze Age, and will return again after patriarchy finally collapses soon.
Under patriarchy, it has always been more or less a false tradeoff and false choice between liberty and community, as the system is rigged that way. Not so under Matriarchy.
And of course, the "everybody must procreate" mentality is every bit as outdated, outmoded, and specious as the notion that "everybody must work for a living".
The first job of every human society is to produce, raise, and acculturate the next generation. Millennia ago, humans realized this task is best accomplished within family units. Functional societies therefore have always promoted family formation and helped parents raise functional children by social and legal guardrails -- "it takes a village" isn't wrong. Ours stopped doing both of these around 1970 in the name of liberation.
You're right, you shouldn't have to do it yourself. But courtesy Mill, Nietzsche, the postmodernists, and the Sexual Revolution, Western societies refuse to help promote virtue or have standards. Don't you feel liberated?
As a rule, whenever a market is deemed toxic, the government steps in to regulate. How to define toxic/noxious markets? Castro and Pham laid out an excellent 4 point scale - does something decrease agency, increase vulnerability, harm individuals and harm communities? Historically any product or market that ranks highly on any ONE of these scales is regulated by the government.
Yet social media and other attention economy apps rank highly on all 4 scales.
It is astounding to me how many media commentators, social welfare organizations and advocacy groups, even educators are willing to carry water for the big tech and social media companies. It would be inconceivable for any organization to advocate for teenage drinking or gambling, given the toxicity of those products.
I’m glad Australia has ripped the bandaid off and placed the onus back on the social media companies. All the hand wringing about mechanisms and costs are beside the point. Meta has been making Billion$ off a flawed product and market. If they can’t figure out how to age gate and maintain profitability, so what? That’s zuckerbergs problem, not ours. Toxic markets don’t have an inevitable right to make money.
https://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/p/pod/dod-idx/is-the-attention-economy-noxious.pdf?c=phimp;idno=3521354.0020.017;format=pdf
This is a great test, Mike. I have a degree in econ and I've never heard of it before, but I love it. Our modern world wants everything to be measurable. This test takes the qualitative "this is bad" sense (which we have incorrectly trained ourselves to ignore as unreliable) and quantifies it, thus making it digestible to our modern (left-brain skewed) minds.
The one thing I do agree with you: our minds are left-brain skewed nowadays. Iain McGilchrist's book "The Master and His Emissary" comes to mind.
I love that book. The RSA Animate of it is also good: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dFs9WO2B8uI
I can't make it through Matter With Things, but I did watch several of his video summaries. If you haven't seen them they're pretty good: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLqBHk3itxyPBWvU7N2ZNCRXpjzMStjgm6
Thank you for sharing this. I was not familiar with those 4 criteria but find them very enlightening.
In that case, then shouldn't it be regulated for all ages then?
Most things that are toxic to adults are regulated. Some more heavily than others, and mostly as a mechanism to collect taxes. But yes, gambling, the sale and distribution of alcohol/nicotine/weed, vehicle ownership and operation. With the exception of firearms in the US, things that are shown to cause harm to individuals and communities are tightly regulated, and we seem to be just fine.
An absolutely trivial way to implement age gating would be to do it at a device level. A parent just has to set a device to "minor" status, and then whenever that device accesses a service its communication is flagged as associated with a minor. This would require some coordination between device companies and service companies, but the technical barrier to implementing something like this would be very low if the companies were motivated.
Of course, this could be circumvented by children buying their own devices, or pressuring their parents to register those devices as "adult" devices, just like any age-gating technology could be circumvented by the use of fake, stole, or borrowed ID's, but as far as the tradeoff of investment, security, and effectiveness goes, this avenue seems like a no-brainer to me.
Not really trivial, in a technical sense. Both Android and iOS would need to be changed to support a phone being in minor mode, and this setting would need to survive factory resets, but also not permanently impair the device. I guess the devices could be sold as permanent children’s devices, and require them to be replaced when the user ages. Since social media can work in a browser, the is-a-minor flag would need to be added to the internet protocol for logging in (it can’t just be at account creation since the account can be created on another device, or library PC). And I’m sure that soon after introduction of these devices, someone will make a VPN app which will be able to strip out the is-a-minor flag. App stores controlled by the makers could prohibit these, but the FTC is trying to force companies to allow third party app loading and Android already allows side loading apps.
If these technical hurdles can be overcome, then this to me is the best solution since it doesn’t require action by every adult device user. But it’s mostly available now on existing devices as parental controls like Screen Time on iPhones, but I’m sure kids already have ways of bypassing it.
Trivial might be an exaggeration, but certainly feasible. I take your point about parental controls, but those are such a pain to configure.
From Peter Phelps in Sydney, Australia on our hapless world-first attempt at social media gating: "Things you can do in NSW (an Australian state) if you are under 16: Learn to fly an aeroplane; Possess and use a firearm; Drive at 80kph in a Go-Kart; Captain any non-commercial boat up to 20kts; Own a speargun for recreational fishing; Abseiling; Scuba diving; Join the Australian Army Cadet corps; Drag racing; Change your sex.
Things that you now can't do: Twitter/X; Facebook; Instagram; TikTok.
There's so much wrong with the ban it is hard to know where to begin."
What needs to be added (which the hapless MSM missed) on the Australian U16s social media ban is that we all (including us adults) have to sign up to a Digital ID to prove our age (CCP-style) & the government has admitted we will be tracked, monitored and dissenters punished. It was a Trojan horse. The teenagers will find a way to get around it. An Orwellian world is just around the corner.
And in the US states that plan on similar laws, setting it at 18, it will create a bizarre situation that one could be old enough to get *married*(less than 18 in some states still), but too young to post their wedding on FB or any other social media.
Very true. Slopes are a LOT slipperier than they appear!
ScarlettHamiltonAustralia - I think the examples cited by Peter Phelps are all great arguments in favor social media regulation, not against it as you suggest.
When I was 15, almost 16, getting my PADI scuba license in Northern NSW, I had to do coursework and supervised dives of increasing complexity before I was given the license that let me go out diving. I believe there was an age eligibility imposed (maybe 15) - before that age I was considered too young to engage with the activity in a safe enough manner. There was a rigorous training framework, set up to help a neophyte avoid the most common and avoidable dangers that could arise from SCUBA diving, that allowed the stepwise, deliberate accumulation of skills to avoid injury, death, or damage to delicate eco-systems. One of the most important skills we learned was how to time a dive to avoid irreversible damage.
Social Media has none of this. The same full featured product designed for adults is rolled out to any age user, without full transparency of what data will be collected and served, without any training on how to stay safe, with no limits on how long one should use it, no parental consent requested or required, and no self limiting external factors applied (like those that exist in literally every one of the other examples you sight. You think a 14 year old can just "change their sex" (whatever that means) from the sofa in the living room?).
All the examples you give have regulations, trained supervision, and barriers to entry that social media should have had from the start. The social media companies chose to ignore the damage they were doing to kids in order to grow at all costs, and now they are being called to the carpet. It should have happened a decade ago, at least it's happening now.
And if you're really worried about the government tracking you, I have some bad news about drivers licenses, professional licenses, tax returns, car registrations, insurance policies, and property records.
I see your point but none of the things you listed are as accessible, cheap or addicting as doom scrolling.
"Age gated" cultures, led by the United States, are the most dangerous for both adults and youth on the planet. The USA consistently ranks by far the most hazardous of Western nations (as well as worse than most second-world nations) for drugs, alcohol, guns, violence, crime, suicide, homicide, and other ills, with 30- and 40-aged adults consistently endangering themselves and their children with irresponsible behaviors.
Why is this? By requiring no other evidence of responsibility than age, the USA promotes dangerous behaviors among adults -- grownup gun-death rates 4 times higher, overdose rates 6 times higher, etc., than in other Western countries -- which then become taboo to discuss. (The biggest single reason guns are the leading cause of death among American youth is because American adults shoot them, for example.)
Today, American teenagers are much more mature and responsible than American grownups by nearly every measurable index, but they will become more risk-prone as they age into their late 20s, 30s, and 40s, CDC and public health statistics show. That is because the USA allows grossly irresponsible behaviors by adults.
Responsible, safer cultures impose severe standards on adult behaviors and more freedom for young people to participate, not arbitrary age limits. The biggest danger to young people's mental and physical well-being is not social media, but troubled behaviors and abuses inflicted by grownups in their families, the 2021 and 2023 CDC surveys and analyses (and others) clearly show. Of course we grownups love age limits, since they flatter us and allow freedoms without responsibility based solely on age. But they endanger us and our kids, and it's time we recognized that they don't work.
I agree that virtue is sorely lacking among American adults. We could really benefit from exorcising the ghost of John Stuart Mill and channeling Aristotle in his place for a while. But that's a huge undertaking that requires overturning most of the philosophical foundation of the modern Western world.
In the meantime, I'd like some age gating to keep the young from being further drawn into the rabbit hole of "if it feels good, do it".
Which Aristotle? The one who didn't exactly believe in women's rights (or even any individual rights for that matter), and was totally cool with slavery? That Aristotle?
Aristotle has an internally coherent system of virtue ethics that doesn't require Christianity. I would prefer Aquinas or even Calvin, but I don't see either of them as viable options. Nietzsche was right: we've killed God.
Any system of pagan ethics is going to really suck for women and children; you're right about that. But as I tell my students, Enlightenment individual rights only make sense in an active, monotheistic framework -- "all men are created equal" is nonsensical without "man made in the image of God". If you're just a smart ape or a random combination of chemicals, who gave you those rights? Apes (regardless of how smart) are governed not by natural law but by jungle law, and the jungle is an even worse place for women and kids.
So while Aristotle wouldn't be my first choice, he's the one I think most available at the moment.
All I can say is, your exegesis needs work.
Well-said, Mike.
This is an intriguing counter argument and I’d agree that blanket abstinence only tactics on things like drugs and alcohol have a backfiring effect making them more desirable. A shift in cultural attitudes similar to more lax countries would probably be beneficial. I’d even agree the drinking age should be lowered to 18. However, I think the argument being made is that social media is inherently different than these other issues. And I don’t think the article argues for blanket abstinence, but sensible limitations, and points out many other areas we all agree where children need limitations. Finally, I disagree that teenagers today are more mature and responsible because of the research showing teens are reaching age related milestones much later than previous generations.
The fact that that young people are reaching traditional age-related milestones later compared to previous generations is a trend that began many generations ago as a result of broader social, economic, and cultural changes both nationally and globally, not all of which are negative. It's a mixed bag. And ironically, some of this delaying is in fact a direct result of raising age limits, as well as safetyism jumping the shark in general. Holding today's young people to the same standards as previous generations, often selectively, is thus a major category error, and thus not a valid reason to curtail their civil and human rights (which will only infantilize them even further, in a vicious cycle).
Mike - do adults act irresponsibly at times? Of course. That is no argument to do away w age gating of potentially or certainly harmful activities ranging from driving to gambling. Younger people are both poor at evaluating risks, as well as developing neural pathways that are likely to turn into lifelong habits. Age of first use is a powerful developmental concept, and delaying the age of first use/experience as having protective value is well documented. An example, someone who uses nicotine as a young teen is far more likely to smoke/vape as an adult than someone who avoids nicotine until late adolescence.
These responses raise some great points. First, I argue for no age limits on social media because its buffered environment is vastly safer than the offline world, and it is crucial for information, expression, contacts, and vital space not supervised by adults where today's alarming roster of abused youth can seek contacts and help. Look at Jonathan Haidt’s most recent post on Australia’s frankly silly roster of the “harms” of social media: in 6 MONTHS’ time, under-16s reported far FEWER harms online (most easily solvable with keypad tabs) than most encounter in a SINGLE DAY in the outside world.
Second, having said that, I also agree with Haidt that children and teens (all of us) should spend more unsupervised time outdoors. That’s why I also advocate far fewer and more transitional outside-world “age-gatings” (what an awful term). The safest cultures are “age-integrated” rather than age-gated. The drinking cultures of Mediterranean tier countries, where children experience alcohol early in transitional fashion and open-age pubs and discos predominate over bars, are much safer than those of over-21 cultures to the north. Only countries whose adults are grossly irresponsible – like ours – demand absolute teen abstinence (to stop American youths from acting like American adults).
Third, I see the Gen Z revolution is not common knowledge. How many know the "teenager" of 2024 is NOTHING like the "teenager" of 1990 or 1970? Crime by teens has plummeted by 90% over the last generation; teens’ unplanned pregnancy and school dropout have plunged by 75-80%; even amid a rampant opioid epidemic, persons under age 20 comprise fewer than 2% of overdose deaths; etc.? Now that 16-year-olds bail their 40-aged parents out of jail and visit them in rehab much more than the other way around, shouldn’t any “age-gating” go the other way? Maximum rather than minimum ages for rights?
Fourth, Gen Z is achieving what past generations call “adult milestones” later for imposed and evolved reasons, not immaturity. One reason, for things like driving, is pointless age-gatings like teen-driving laws and curfews (which long-term studies prove worthless). Another is that greedy elders cut our taxes, allowed wealth hoarding, and forced huge debt on Gen Z for education (even so, Gen Z is more likely to go to college), buying a house, and achieving economic stability. While Gen Z’s delay in childbearing partly relates to economics, Gen Z may be wisely realizing their generation can't count on today's grownups and must avoid getting trapped in traditional choices.
Finally, truly grownup societies recognize behaviors don’t “start” in youth; they are circular. Three-fourths of teens today have parents and grownups around them suffering mental health, alcohol, drug, crime, and abuse issues (“adverse experiences” the CDC associates with two-thirds of teen’s depression and 90% of suicide attempts). America’s reliance on age-gating is a big reason our social policies fail disastrously. The reckless, impulsive “teen brain” claims popular 10-20 years ago have been debunked by the discrediting of neural scannings and solid evidence that teen risks are driven by environments (poverty, family, toxins like lead), not brain development.
The 25-50-year-old has replaced 15-24 as America’s “high risk” age. I regret that my field, social science, remains 30 years behind the times in perpetrating backwards views on adolescence and adulthood. What are you paying us for?
Well-said. Amen to that!
Delaying age at first use seems to have a point of diminishing returns though. See how adults behave in Denmark (very permissive towards youth) vs Iceland (very restrictive towards youth), for example.
Thank you, Dr. Galloway. Of course it's possible. Of course they know how to do it. Of course they know who the minors are. Otherwise, how would they know what they're potentially losing out on? CDA 230 IS the elephant in the room. Liability has always been the great constraint to irresponsible capitalism. Congress carved out these 26 words. The courts have misinterpreted these 26 words. It's now time for a CDA 230 sunset and reset for 2024's digital environment.
All I can say is, be VERY careful what you wish for. Repealing Section 230 outright would not only not solve anything (Australia, for example, has no such equivalent, and yet still has had plenty of problems with social media, or else passing their new law would have been a political nonstarter), but in a society as litigious as the USA, would have a far-reaching chilling effect on free speech and the free exchange of ideas. It's throwing out the baby with the bathwater.
Even Scott Galloway himself takes a more measured and nuanced approach to Section 230 reform rather than outright repeal.
Excellent Chris, straight to the problem of this problem. The obsolete Section 230. "Liability has always been the great constraint to irresponsible capitalism". Sometimes I wonder if the safety standards approach applied to Big Tech and same tolerance for the millions of children dead or maimed across the planet (and more human catastrophes) was applied to aviation industry what would be flying like today...
How would YOU like to be held vicariously liable for the comments that other people leave on your blog posts? Repealing Section 230 outright would make that possible. So be VERY careful what you wish for!
Reform is one thing, outright repeal is another. Even Galloway himself has made that distinction in some of his other blog posts.
Hello RWBS! Thank you for your comment. You nailed it, it was never a matter of Freedom of Speech, it was a matter of protecting the bunch of nerds trying to launch a new economy. Context is king: in those days there were only 8% of Americans online and even less from the rest of the world. The Internet, got larger, many new products appeared, along with persuasive addictive technology thus creating a plethora of new threats to the NOW millions digital illiterates consumers including children, but that Section 230 has remained untouched (and later was skilfully instrumentalized by Big Tech). It's a little bit like if we would still regulate traffic and automotive today with the same rules of when there were only 10 cars in a town and 2 car accidents a month because the more accidents there are the greater the profit. Of course if automotive had the fire power of Big Tech in terms of addiction, rich lobbists, and users manipulation :) we probably would. Seriously, we know better. Maya Angelou said "when you know better, you do better". If we give up the notion that commercial actors must operate within the rule of law to what kind of society are we actually saying yes to? What I know for sure is that the world was a much better place before Section 230.
“Necessary” my @ss.
F*ck totalitarian digital IDs.
If parents are so concerned, they can simply refuse to give their children smart phones or do a better job monitoring/restricting their online activity.
I completely understand the fear of digital IDs. It's clearly a preferred avenue for agencies and a clever totalitarian slippery slope to be expanded on or utilized nefariously. I'm with you.
How would you feel about phones specifically for kids that have pre-installed parental control features to allow parents to more easily monitor and restrict their online activity? What if governments subsidized these phones to incentivize them for parents? Maybe not even government subsidies, but charitable organizations funded largely by corporate donors.
tell the governments to sod off. too much overreach. there are so many laws no one could 'obey' the law if they tried!
Amen!
Unfortunately, parents and their kids are caught in a "collective action trap". The social part of social media. Unilateral action to do away with social media carries significant costs. Adolescents are wired to be extremely sensitive to these costs. The social media companies have been very intentional in designing their platforms to exploit these (and other) psychological vulnerabilities. In much the same way the tobacco companies use the exploit of nicotine addiction.
Social media companies now have a choice. Design products that are safer for users, or require digital IDs or other dystopian measures that some subset of users will find so distasteful that they disconnect. I wouldn't bet on the safer product path being the one they choose.
The collective action trap applies to all ages, not just people under 16 (or 18 or 21 or whatever arbitrary age limit that our "betters" choose to set). Age gating only kicks the proverbial can down the road at best, while putting young people at an unfair disadvantage relative to adults. It's like having a designated peeing section (or peeing age limit perhaps) in a swimming pool. If we want collective solutions, we need to go collectively all the way, or else leave individuals to their own devices, pun intended of course.
There is value in the delay.
Age of first use is a powerful concept.
We have analogs in substance use - the difference in outcomes for someone who first uses tobacco, at age 13 vs someone whose first use is age 19 are very different. The American lung assoc. estimates that almost 90% of adults who smoke daily smoked before age 18.
Similarly if we delay first use of social media from 10, 12, 14 to the age of 16, we will help a lot of users avoid some of the worst outcomes. Not eliminate, but reduce. There is already good research supporting the idea that social media users who start using before the age of 13 suffer worse outcomes than their peers at 16. There is evidence for this ban, it's not arbitrary.
Such a concept probably has a kernel of truth, but still remains rather controversial despite the apparent pseudo-consensus on the matter. There is also reverse causation and confounding as well. Delaying may very well have some value, but is hardly the silver bullet its advocates claim it is, especially when it comes to things like social media. Eventually you reach a point of diminishing returns, and comes with it's own costs too, so it is a very delicate balancing act.
Indeed, this does far more harm than good, and opens the door to some very dark and dystopian possibilities.
It feels to me that we are doing society and kids a disservice by narrowing the conversation about the dangers of phones to social media. What about ubiquitous data tracking that smart phones allow through apps like Google maps and specific apps to track your kids? What about all the cognitive assessment that goes on in apps designed to help kids with math skills or reading or to learn to type or organize themselves? Where does all that data get stored? One a device or account requires verification with a bio-ID system then all of that data can be stored and linked to that kid. Will companies like Palantir let that opportunity go to waste?
Do we want our kids to know how to do analog life before they get co-opted into the digital realm? If so then the answer to protecting kids must be to have a hard age limit on kids having their own smart phone until they are 16 or 18.
There can be phones for kids that have no data collection potential on them. Parents can have access to their location but that location data needs to be protected and not stored or accessed by any other app or federal agency or private company.
We are being bamboozled by limited focus threats leading us down the garden path to a biometric electronic ID verification system. Once it is in place for kids being mandatory for adults will soon follow. The truth is that our phone numbers are already being used for that. But what we really should be concerned about and asking for legislation to protect us our data and our kids data and their right to grow up as human beings and not digital “product”.
You're spot on. The discussion is starting with social media/smartphones for kids, but that's just the first symptom being addressed. This ban on youth social media use is like requiring TB patients to not spit blood in the street. The pathology goes much, much deeper.
We permitted the hate filled maniacs who run the p industry to insinuate themselves into our boys' conversations about sex with their freinds. A part of every boys growing up now. How dare they. The bastards. How is Galloway so complacent about this. Its so awful no one sees this.
Thing is, literally all of the bad things about social media are true for ALL ages, NOT just young people below some arbitrary age limit (and ANY age you choose is arbitrary, pick your poison). And social media also has significant benefits for young people as well. So let's not throw out the baby with the bathwater now.
True, teens often do act like idiots. As do many adults as well. And honestly, compared to the adults around them, teens really aren't so bad on average. Case in point: X, formerly known as Twitter, is primarily used by adults over 18, often much older, and yet has become an absolute cesspool in recent years, far worse than Instagram or TikTok have ever been.
(Mic drop)
“Why do modern societies impose minimum legal ages for many activities and products, such as drinking, smoking, gambling, porn, driving, skydiving, or watching R or X-rated movies” … yet permit sex change mutilations of the same aged kids?
Very strange to bring up a medical procedure that does have minimum age requirements as well as extensive professional consultation. Everything on that list broadly affects EVERYONE, where your non sequitur is an infinitesimal minority population I doubt you can even place a number beside.
The regulations need to be placed on the social media companies and the data brokers. But no, it's easier to regulate children.
Online gambling/betting sites have implemented highly effective age-gating systems with very little trouble or fanfare.
If they can do it, then socials and porn sites can, too. Zero possible excuse—especially for porn sites, whose consumers have absolutely no reasonable rationale to conceal the types of personal information that are used for age verification.
If any society out there is civilized enough with a decent enough legislature to enact laws requiring this, with actual teeth (long prison terms for executives, and/or fines large enough to bankrupt/destroy the business, etc), we'll see these sites "suddenly discover" quick and easy ways to implement age gating.
It's unconstitutional.
https://www.rstreet.org/commentary/current-age-verification-methods-threaten-our-first-amendment-rights-beyond-anonymity/
Amen
Maybe I will tell social media that I am under 16 even though I am 62. I don't want to see graphic sex or violence. There are websites for that if you really want to see that. I vehemently object to the government telling us what to do. That's what parents are for. I find it fascinating that people are all for social media bans and injecting their kids with poison but have no interest in taking responsibility for themselves and their kids. Social media seems able to restrict my modest comments on society or telling the the truth about climate change, health or other things that are easily evidenced, etc but somehow can't find the offensive content or the bullies and pedos. We are all subject to the temptations of addiction. Kids have to learn to manage that in a safe way too. Banning kids from SM wont help them adjust to a world full of those temptations and toxic ways of dealing with stress. We should be teaching kids healthy ways to deal with stress - not just putting a band aid on the problem.
Amen