If social media is so bad, then perhaps we should declare a state of emergency and "quarantine" all such platforms for all ages for "just two weeks" (right). And also have a smartphone buyback program like they do for guns. Then once the spell is broken, then We the People can decide collectively whether to go back to either.
Such bans I believe will do more harm than good on balance. At best they only kick the can further down the road, hiding it in the future, and it goes downhill from there. The privacy and cybersecurity pitfalls of mandatory age verification (or at least any kind that has any real teeth at all) are very real and will ultimately hurt everyone, backfiring on adults too.
Do not think it will stop at 16 or whatever other arbitrary age limit they choose either. This is merely the very first of many dominoes to fall.
And it's NOT merely a tiny minority of teens who benefits from social media while the majority is harmed: as renowned sociologist Mike Males points out, it's exactly the reverse. The few who are harmed merit individual attention (focused protection), not broadstroke bans that throw the proverbial baby out with the bathwater.
I agree that we need to make it safer for all ages, albeit with the caveat that we would still need to comply with the Bill of Rights (USA) and Charter of Rights and Freedoms (Canada). We need comprehensive data privacy legislation for all ages, as the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) points out. We need to ban surveillance advertising. We need to regulate the algorithms better, and get rid of blatantly and deliberately addictive features. As for content, there are of course limits to what would would be constitutional in terms of bans, so outright censorship would probably not be a good idea. But there are still ways of making it safer regardless.
And finally, we adults, especially us Elder Millennials, all need to stop treating young people as though they are less than fully human, stop abusing and degrading them in any way, and allow them at LEAST as much freedom in the offline world as previous generations enjoyed. Teens Teens don't need more restrictions than they already have, if anything, they need far less.
I agree with so much of this. Although I disagree that most kids are not harmed. It’s so much more than just mental health. With an average time spent of 4-6 hours per day, there is much more being displaced, much more than the data is capturing at this point in time.
I try to let parents know that social media is neither all good nor all bad. I think the academic debates often aren't overly helpful to the average parent who is just trying to make sense of it all. I also certainly see teenagers who have mental health issues clearly exacerbated by their social media use, and yet they will tell me it doesn't affect their well-being. Subjective reports are not always accurate, particularly if someone has problematic use. I don't believe that i "abuse or degrade" children or teenagers with my messaging. I appreciate the value of nuance, which is often missed in these academic debates. I try to take what I see on both sides of this debate and make it applicable to parents that are on the ground.
If social media is so bad, then perhaps we should declare a state of emergency and "quarantine" all such platforms for all ages for "just two weeks" (right). And also have a smartphone buyback program like they do for guns. Then once the spell is broken, then We the People can decide collectively whether to go back to either.
Such bans I believe will do more harm than good on balance. At best they only kick the can further down the road, hiding it in the future, and it goes downhill from there. The privacy and cybersecurity pitfalls of mandatory age verification (or at least any kind that has any real teeth at all) are very real and will ultimately hurt everyone, backfiring on adults too.
Do not think it will stop at 16 or whatever other arbitrary age limit they choose either. This is merely the very first of many dominoes to fall.
And it's NOT merely a tiny minority of teens who benefits from social media while the majority is harmed: as renowned sociologist Mike Males points out, it's exactly the reverse. The few who are harmed merit individual attention (focused protection), not broadstroke bans that throw the proverbial baby out with the bathwater.
I agree that we need to make it safer for all ages, albeit with the caveat that we would still need to comply with the Bill of Rights (USA) and Charter of Rights and Freedoms (Canada). We need comprehensive data privacy legislation for all ages, as the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) points out. We need to ban surveillance advertising. We need to regulate the algorithms better, and get rid of blatantly and deliberately addictive features. As for content, there are of course limits to what would would be constitutional in terms of bans, so outright censorship would probably not be a good idea. But there are still ways of making it safer regardless.
And finally, we adults, especially us Elder Millennials, all need to stop treating young people as though they are less than fully human, stop abusing and degrading them in any way, and allow them at LEAST as much freedom in the offline world as previous generations enjoyed. Teens Teens don't need more restrictions than they already have, if anything, they need far less.
(Mic drop)
I agree with so much of this. Although I disagree that most kids are not harmed. It’s so much more than just mental health. With an average time spent of 4-6 hours per day, there is much more being displaced, much more than the data is capturing at this point in time.
Perhaps you are correct, but most of those harms are at least largely subjective, and also affect adults at least as much as teens.
https://mikemales.substack.com/p/teenagers-use-the-internet-in-much
I try to let parents know that social media is neither all good nor all bad. I think the academic debates often aren't overly helpful to the average parent who is just trying to make sense of it all. I also certainly see teenagers who have mental health issues clearly exacerbated by their social media use, and yet they will tell me it doesn't affect their well-being. Subjective reports are not always accurate, particularly if someone has problematic use. I don't believe that i "abuse or degrade" children or teenagers with my messaging. I appreciate the value of nuance, which is often missed in these academic debates. I try to take what I see on both sides of this debate and make it applicable to parents that are on the ground.