No; it’s not inarguable.
I do feel that some minor limitations around social media should exist; such as hours of the day you may not be allowed to read or post; but they should be simple age-gates created to privately verify a person’s age via a simple SSO/OAuth style token. If you can’t authenticate against some privacy respecting identity proving entity you probably aren’t old enough and any account(s) you create would be limited.
Not all social media needs to be age-gated either; but social networks could be forced by law to avoid monetizing your account or habits at all if you don’t willingly identify. (and by doing so; also CONSENT TO THIS MONETIZATION) In short; if you are not verified they’re required to assume you are a child and handle your data as such…with utmost respect to your privacy.
It’s complicated. The current state of the internet is dominated by corporate interests towards maximal profit, and that’s driving the way websites and services are structured towards very toxic and addictive patterns. This is bigger than just “social media.”
However, as a queer person, I will say that if I didn’t have the ability to access the Internet and talk to other queer people without my parents knowing, I would be dead. There are lots of abused kids who lack any other outlets to seek help, talk to people and realize their problems, or otherwise find relief for the crushing weight of familial abuse.
Navigating this issue will require grace, awareness and a willingness to actually address core problems and not just symptoms. It doesn’t help that there is an increasing uptick of purity culture and “for the children” legislation that will curtail people’s privacy, ability to use the internet and be used to push queer people and their art or narratives off of the stage.
Requiring age verification reduces anonymity and makes it certain that some people will be unable to use the internet safely. Yes, it’s important in some cases, but it’s also a cost to that.
There’s also the fact that western society has systemically ruined all third spaces and other places for children to exist in that isn’t their home or school. It used to be that it was possible for kids and teens to spend time at malls, or just wandering around a neighborhood. There were lots of places where they were implicitly allowed to be- but those are overwhelmingly being closed, commericalized or subject to the rising tide of moral panic and paranoia that drives people to call the cops on any group of unknown children they see on their street.
Police violence and severity of response has also heightened, so things that used to be minor, almost expected misdemeanors for children wandering around now carry the literal risk of death.
So children are increasingly isolated, locked down in a context where they cannot explore the world or their own sense of self outside the hovering presence of authority- so they turn to the internet. Cutting that off will have repercussions. Social media wouldn’t be so addictive for kids if they had other venues to engage with other people their age that weren’t subject to the constant scrutiny of adults.
Without those spaces, they have to turn to the only remaining outlet. This article is woefully inadequate to answer the fundamental, core problems that produce the symptoms we are seeing; and, it’s implementation will not rectify the actual problem. It will only add additional stress to the system and produce a greater need to seek out even less safe locations for the people it ostensibly wishes to protect.
I was expecting a much stronger argument based on the headline.
Personally I’d prefer regulation on how social media is structured and how algorithms operate. First thing I’d do is ban infinite scroll, which corporations like because it increases ‘engagement’ whilst harming the quality of the experience for their users.
The argument they make seems to boil down to, there’s various reasons to believe that social media can be a negative influence on teenagers, social media companies are intentionally manipulative and amoral, the idea of this type of social media ban is popular with the public in polls, and the Trump administration opposes social media regulation. So yeah, not all that comprehensive. Notably lacking is a case that a youth ban is actually the right solution and wouldn’t cause its own harms, an explanation of why teenagers and adults are so different here and what that implies, or an acknowledgement of the cases against such a ban (for instance they make an uncritically positive reference to last year’s ban by Australia which is extremely controversial and has a lot of good arguments against it, like the privacy disaster of making everyone prove their identity to post online). To be fair the whole thing seems like mostly a really brief summary of The Anxious Generation, maybe that book makes a stronger point.
It has to be acknowledged that much of what makes up human culture and society is online now, and will continue to be going forward. The real question should be, what do we want that society to look like, and how do we move in that direction? Probably there is a lot more to it than passing laws that ban things. Calling social media digital crack and demanding teenagers to go live in a past that doesn’t exist anymore seems like a very head-in-sand attitude to me.
Videogaming, porn and gambling gave boys such dopamine hits that anything else they did felt boring.
Kids these days don’t understand the rush of dumping their entire allowance into 15 minutes of Street Fighter, comitting borderline felonies while riding bicycles around the neighborhood, and then going into the woods to jerk it to that one Playboy before going over Steve’s house to worship the devil.
So teens who don’t fit in well in the IRL spaces that are available to them should have 0 ways to have social interactions?
If teen me hadn’t had the internet, I would have 0 joyful memories whatsoever of my teen years. Anyone sympathizing with the ideas in the OP is in my mind purely evil and oppressive, I have no other words to describe this.
Are you genuinely comparing social media to social interactions? Twitter for example is like a parody of what social interactions are, and I think this article is talking about things like Twitter, TikTok, Instagram, and other algorithmic platforms that give the user an anonymous feed of slop. I can’t imagine this is advocating for a ban on platforms like fb messenger, WhatsApp, ect. that aren’t nearly as invasive and generally do serve a good social function.
The case isn’t clear for platforms like reddit and Lemmy imo, on one side they do have a slop feed effect, but they also feel a lot less aggressive to me for some reason.
Again, how do you define “social media”?
I grew up on IRC as well as web forums and found those social interactions very fun overall, not dissimilar from IRL social interactions.
I would draw the line at having an algorithmic content feed as the primary way of interaction. TikTok, Instagram, Facebook (mostly), YouTube, Twitter, Reddit would be out or would have to drastically change their content discovery system. By algorithmic I mean - one that adapts to the user’s personal viewing habits.
I’d classify stuff like IRC and web forums as communicators, in the same basket as WhatsApp, email, sms, and perhaps Discord. I agree that they have, in general, valuable social interactions. They also don’t have the same effect as algorithmic platforms where you can be scrolling for 2 hours and not remember a single thing you read, or where you’re served content tailored to keep you engaged.
I’m sure there are some valuable platforms that would get hurt by this distinction, but imo it’s a good first guideline.
It’s a possible distinction to make, the main problem is that the article in the OP didn’t make that distinction.
Calling people who are trying to protect children pure evil is unhelpful rhetoric. Disagreeing with their opinion is helpful. Sharing an anecdote against their proposals is helpful. Personal attacks are unhelpful and do more harm than good for the conversation. I will admit that they set the stage in bad faith by calling their stance ‘inarguable’.
I tend to be unsympathetic in general to ideas that anyone (including young people) needs to be “protected” from their own decisions.
They only want to ban social media and even then only the big ones with an exception for youtube.
OK, what’s the definition of “social media” for that purpose then?
I’ll cop to not having read the article and I’ll say I might, but I can think of some pretty good ones. It’s so children and teenagers can tell people when something bad is happening to them. Like being in a child marriage. Or being abused. Or being shot at in school. Or when their community is being preyed upon. Or when they’re in a cult. Or when they’re kidnapped and they have a phone. Or when they need to advocate for themselves against policy that chiefly affects them. Or when they’re afraid something is happening to their friends. Or when they’re suicidal. Or when they’re lost. I could probably come up with a hundred of these. The thing is that children and teens are half-finished people and we afford people certain rights. So we need to decide if we’d rather treat kids as human or as another group of pawns to control. I loathe this debate.
This is exactly the conversation that happened in Parliament over the Australian social media ban and its absurd.
There is a broad recognition that in a regulatory vacuum corporate social media created toxic and addictive “engagement”-maximising algorithms that harm all facets of society exposed to them.
So a solution is proposed: ban it for children.
When exactly, did it become fine for corporations to actively and deliberately harm people as long as they were old enough? How about preventing the harm?
It would be just as easy for a government to ban opaque and engagement maximising feed algorithms. But they went with the option that allows “tech” giants to keep harming the less marketable 80% of the population.
This is ageism. Social media should be banned for everyone.
I don’t believe you read the article nor gave this any thought before you made your flippant comment. Also, you give no reasoning for your dogmatic statements.
I read the piece and have been thinking about this daily for thirty years.
The guy is right and the piece sucks.
It’s borderline satanic panic that hasn’t thought through the downstream ramifications of even attempting to implement age gates online. And as the previous poster says the negative effects of social media are at the absolute least just as bad in adults. The scaremongering about drug dealers and pedophiles is just that.
There! That’s much better! I agree and well done.
Really? You were going for some Socratic roundabout ironic thing? Could have just said what you thought, saved everybody the trouble. That feels a bit patronizing.
You were going for some Socratic roundabout ironic thing?
No.
That feels a bit patronizing.
That was not my intent. I apologize if anyone felt this way.
Sounds like someone needs to take a little break from social media.
Why is that?
Internet anonymity in general is a terrible thing and I would do away with it if I could. I’m impossible to say who’s a real person, who’s a bot, who’s an alternate account. It’s allowed every evil and terrible person to find others like them and embolden each other without the oversight of social pressure from the rest of society which I think is an essentially needed social cue of healthy human communities.
Yes I realize the irony of posting this on Lemmy.
OK, legal name, Id
Give
Fuuuuck that. The option of anonymity is essential to freedom of expression especially where authoritarianism takes root. Especially important now.
I agree with you but it does cut both ways. Anonymity empowers assholes, too.
Okay cattywampas, if that even is your real name.
deleted by creator
There should really be a different term for Instagram/TikTok/FB/etc style social media sites (I call them “push-style” social media, though “algorithmic” is probably a better term) and websites like public forums, chatting platforms, etc. The former is what I think this article is talking about. The latter seems both fine and necessary these days, even in some cases among children.
I just go with “corpo social media” - is there a company trying to get infinite growth and profit behind the website?
Yes. Those are good points.
Other link wasn’t loading for me
Read this article for free Register for FT Edit now
Once registered, you can: • Read this article and many more, free for 30 days with no card details required • Enjoy 8 thought-provoking articles a day chosen for you by senior editors Register Now
Ah, yes. Truly, I cannot argue against this impeccable logic. I am swayed.
https://ghostarchive.org/archive/2yvgd
Also, see if you can install Bypass Paywalls Clean.
Thanks. Just installed a new OS and I’m still working out the kinks. I had that extension installed previously but because it just works in the background I didn’t even think to re-install it.
As a thought experiment, it’s somewhat fascinating to ask what “social media” has done. I don’t really consider anything past MySpace truly social. The term now means “let’s keep you addicted to posts from people you’ll never meet” – essentially, the modern form of checkstand tabloids.
I mean, I don’t disagree on the broad strokes, but it does beg the question:
What are you doing here?
This is that. You’re on social media. We don’t allow smoking and drinking for adults because it’s any less harmful for them, it’s just that we choose to let grownups choose whether they want to mess themselves up.
So why do you choose to mess yourself up and what should society do about it?
I have full control over my feed here. That’s an important distinction. I’d imagine if I end up in someone else’s hometown off Beehaw, we’d end up getting a beer or lunch.
Saying Facebook is in the same area code is specious.
Oh, ok.
So is this fine for kids, then? And if so, how do you draw that line in a piece of legislation?
Not OP, but i am here because it’s addictive.
Ostensibly, I came to be informed about special interest areas… But that’s not a fair representation of how my time is spent.
Hey, way more honest than OP.
How would they implement such a law?
The same way Australia is doing it, a big fine for companies that don’t comply and add an age verification process to sites.
Will it work 100%? No
Will it work enough? Probably
So people would have to provide an ID to use social media? That seems like a privacy nightmare.
I mean, Facebook already requires ID in many cases. https://www.facebook.com/help/159096464162185/
You’re required to prove your age in a bunch of real life scenarios too, like buying alcohol, tobacco, or a firearm.
It is a privacy issue, but the question is on the balance is the privacy concern worse than the harms being done by youth on social media?
Given that there are literally hundreds of university studies showing how bad this shit is for kids, and leaked internal documents from the social media companies themselves, I think it’s the better choice at the moment.
without it becoming the most broken law.
The few beneficiaries of social media include criminals. Drug dealers “reach teens on Snapchat they would never encounter in real life”
lol what? no they meet at school or on the block. how are they going to pick up the drugs?
It’s wild how easy it is to get in contact with small scale drug sellers on Snapchat. It’s easier and more convenient to buy LSD off of Snapchat than buying alcohol at the alcohol store in many medium and large cities, even as an adult. There’s lots of sellers to chose from, no verification of anything, open 24/7, convenient location, some even do home delivery. And they usually have lots of other stuff you probably want as well.
I can’t get my drug dealer to text me back and these kids are getting freebies on Snapchat? Fucking bullshit.
Initial meetings and other communications like where to meet in person, etc.
Lemmy would be decimated.
In the traditional sense of losing about 10% of its users? Seems about right.
nah, we’d win
