Taylor Lorenz is the one who doxxed Libs of TikTok, who came this close to lionising the murderer Luigi Mangione, and who for some reason habitually lies about her age, but she makes some excellent points in this article: “The world wants to ban children from social media, but there will be grave consequences for us all”.
Excerpt:
While social media bans may seem like a prudent measure to protect children, they are not only ineffective, they endanger both children and adults. There is little evidence that social media is driving any type of widespread mental health crisis in children. Studies have repeatedly shown the opposite. Removing anonymity from the web, which will inevitably happen when tech companies are required to identify and ban children, allows for easier government tracking and censorship of journalists, activists and whistleblowers, who rely on online anonymity.
And while some claim the laws would curb big tech’s power, only the largest tech companies have the resources to shoulder the extensive costs of age verification systems. Non-profit and indie platforms could be forced to close, consolidating big tech’s power further. Mass surveillance systems, once constructed, could also be easily leveraged by governments and bad actors.
If we want to fix the problems with social media, the place to start is through comprehensive data-privacy reform and consumer protections. Governments could also take action to break up big tech companies and prosecute them for anti-competitive behaviour. Lawmakers, who claim to care about children, could pass broader social and economic policies that we know would meaningfully improve children’s lives. Social media is a lifeline, especially for marginalised youth such as LGBTQ+ teens. Any policies that limit online access should centre on the most vulnerable children and adults.
To enact the social media bans being proposed around the world requires some system of age verification, which inherently means expanding surveillance technology. Because algorithmic systems cannot accurately estimate age, verifying a user’s age also requires collecting highly sensitive data or government documents to support the biometric data harvested. The laws being considered don’t all stipulate which system will be used, but there are significant privacy and safety concerns with all of them.
There is a fairly easy method of age verification and kicking off kids too young to handle it.
It is called parenting. We might give that a try.
For kids who have disengaged or “don’t care” parents, social media is the least of their problems.
How? One super simple step (that’ll hit 80% of the problem): if you wanna use social media, I your parent, are on there as a friend so I can see what is going on. Then ask them every once in a while about one of their posts just so that they remember mom or dad are watching.
This is actually false. There are several studies showing that social media use is *strongly* correlated with adverse mental health outcomes.
Further more there are studies that show that there is a relationship between screen time and negative mental and physical health outcomes.
This is trivially verifiable with a simple web search.
Now, you can claim those studies are wrong, you can assert studies that show the opposite (I didn’t look, but I assume they are there) are better studies, etc. etc. But there IS evidence, and it’s not “little”.
It is also fairly trivial to have relatively strong anonymity (or at least pseudo anonymity) and also have a *third party* (not government) age verification system. If Perry Metzger is the same guy I remember from the CypherPunk List days, he should be able to verify my claim.
The problem with social media is:
1. Algorithms that feed the dopamine production in our brains.
2. People on social media using that as a mechanism to to gain (or to simulate the gain) of social status.
Human brains are designed to deal with social status in groups of about 150. Not in groups of about 3 billions.
“only the largest tech companies have the resources to shoulder the extensive costs of age verification systems.”
Bingo !
Big business understands that regulation is not the enemy, but the kindly bricklayer erecting barriers to entry.
Lee,
Exactly what I thought!
Fraser,
Yup. 100%. A parent needs to be, parental. You have kids then it’s your responsibility. If you delegate that responsibility to the state then…
I use kinda social media (Quora, Reddit, Discord, Nightcafe) and these places self-regbulate to the hilt. I got a three day ban from Nightcafe for… attempting to create classical nude images of the sort everyone can see in public buildings. The World has gone nuts. I got trigger warnings for Star Trek Voyager! A while back I watched “Zone of Interest” (about the domestic life of the commandant of Auschwitz). That was rated and had trigger warnings. What for? Tobacco and alcohol use! Apparently, after dinner, Rudolf Höss would enjoy a cigar and a glass of schnapps. I have been to Auschwitz. If that was the worst vice Rudolf Höss indulged in then the 1940s would have been a merrier time.
Removing anonymity from the web, which will inevitably happen when tech companies are required to “identify and ban children, allows for easier government tracking and censorship of journalists, activists and whistleblowers, who rely on online anonymity.”
This is the precise reason for the ban – why they are pushing for it so hard.
“Now, you can claim those studies are wrong, you can assert studies that show the opposite (I didn’t look, but I assume they are there) are better studies, etc. etc. But there IS evidence, and it’s not “little”.”
This paragraph contradicts itself in two sentences. If the studies are poor enough, they certainly are not evidence.
“Studies” are tripe. I studied physics and astrophyics. My degrees don’t have the term “studies” appended to them. Any subject that has the word “studies” added to the title is not worth studying. I once met someone doing a degree in “Modern Studies”. She was stupid enough to want to have sex with me. I was smart enough not to fulfill her desire.
NickM: “Studies” here refers to published [allegedly] scientific results, not “____ studies” programs or degrees.
Mr. Orr: Do you mean to make “parenting” sound like a panopticon or the Home Stasi, with complete transparency on every communication and total surveillance of every device?
Because that’s what you’d need to ensure they don’t have an actually private social media account where they can freely act and express [part of teens growing up, I hear?] without Dad Watching Everything.
That sounds way less healthy than even the opposite pole of complete parental disinvolvement.
“Parenting” here is probably best done by example and some talk about the nature of social media, fake-friends, parasocial relationships, clout-seekers, and the like.
Not by hovering over their shoulder and hoping they don’t have a secret set of accounts they’ll never, ever let you know exist, spying on all their devices to try and make sure, etc.
I would guess that the biggest “mental health disruption” that is being caused among young people from the internet is the fact that they are coming in more conservative than previous generations.
@Sigivald
Mr. Orr: Do you mean to make “parenting” sound like a panopticon or the Home Stasi, with complete transparency on every communication and total surveillance of every device?
Nope, I never said that. On the contrary I think the key is to have your kids think that you MIGHT see what they are posting and it provides certain degree of restraint. Of course it depends on their age. But if you think allowing your twelve year old daughter unrestricted access to the whole of the web, then I’d have to assume you have never had a twelve year old daughter.
Kids need boundaries and restraint because they are not wise, often reckless and don’t have the experience to know what is safe, destructive and harmful. And most of all, DESPARATELY want to fit in, and are willing to do almost anything to achieve that goal. Of course that is true of a lot of adults too, but I am responsible for my kids, they are under my guardianship and so I have a responsibility to fill in the gaps, even when they might not like it. And to be clear, I have seen some of these teenage girl chats, girls from good homes, girls in excellent schools with good parents and good values. If you read it, it’d make your hair stand on end.
But you are right that modeling values is an important part of that too.
Yes – a stopped clock is correct twice a day.