There’s zero chance this message was not shaped by social media companies. Any message like this, regarding any industry, would get that industry’s input.
That said, it sure seems like social media companies got this to be as neutral as they possibly could, considering the very strong evidence that social media is extremely bad for kids. We’re definitely soft rebooting the tobacco experience, this time with psychology instead of lungs.
It's interesting to see beauty, appearance, and eating disorders called out, along with racism and bullying, but little else. Those are absolutely problems, and rabbit holes to keep out of, but I'm not sure that calling some specifics out really encompasses the whole problems, or the higher level problems that exist above the topic of content.
At a higher level, short video content has become a super refined version of americas funniest home videos and mtv. There is no narrative between videos, and it just constantly presses the dopamine button.
Then you get the split videos where you have a sensory video playing alongside someone talking.
It also doesn't talk about faux excitement. Every other youtuber that isnt Miss Rachel is yelling or screaming, and basically producing entire videos of hysterical feigning of shock, mouth agasp. That transcends nearly any topic.
It also doesnt talk about learning to navigate youtube vs being fed youtube by youtube.
It also doesnt talk about advertising, especially the organicish kind. Teaching kids that the video about a guy making pancakes with Prime is a Prime ad.
It also doesnt talk about replacing friends with celebrities.
It might help the mental health of the parents, and increase interaction with their children, if they cut back on their social media use themselves. It would definitely serve as a good example. (I realize I'm saying this via a social media channel while being a father. I get that it's not easy. I am also aware I'm committing hypocrisy.)
My wife and I promised each other not to "share" much (and absolutely no photos) about our child on the Internet (even as the child, getting older, has started asking us to "share" things). I think not being able to use my child for sweet, sweet Internet points was useful in helping me disengage from the least rewarding, most mentally taxing social media (which, for me, was Facebook).
I caught myself replying HN comments during evening read aloud time. I decided to start using the dedicated e-reader, instead of my phone, so that it won't happen again.
A vital amount of social interaction that kids and young adults experience is online. For reclusive or socially anxious individuals it may even be the majority of interaction.
It isn't like how it was 20 or even 10 years ago, blanket banning will leave them significantly socially isolated and stunted. IME anyone over the age of 25 will not fully appreciate this unless they regularly interact with and (critically!) actively listen to what kids have to say.
Taking away heroin from addicted people will leave them feeling bad. That's not a reason to keep supplying it to them.
> blanket banning will leave them significantly socially isolated
If they get that much of their interaction online, they're already socially isolated. That it happens to be called social media doesn't mean it's actually social.
Unilaterally taking heroin away from individuals (especially without investing in the necessary support structures) is also a wrong and doomed strategy (I think everyone here is familiar with the abject disaster that was the War on Drugs), so that's not very encouraging.
Government does have a place here, but it's in the form of banning hyperoptimizing attention/advertising algorithms and other business models that rely on precision crafted human manipulation, not micromanaging as a parental stand-in.
It seems similar to 15ish years ago in some ways. I remember my parents insisting instant messaging would result in us disclosing all our personal information to online predators and being kidnapped, so while most other kids at school were building friendships outside over AIM, we were excluded. Other parents would admirably fawn over how effectively we were restricted from all electronic socialization, while us kids were completely exhausted by the experience and eventually just learned to circumvent NetNanny.
Telling kids today to stay completely off their phones seems even more futile. There's commenters mystified that kids "can't live without their phones"...Well, what do they learn when they are surrounded by adults who literally depend on their phones to live? How many of us are making plans with our own friends without one?
I had a similar experienced as a kid in the 2000s, though not quite as strict as yours.
My group of school friends would talk in person at school and then hop on a Call of Duty lobby when they got home, or chat on Facebook/SMS. Without internet or a cell phone, I was only present for a small portion of the their conversations and activities. Someone might post something funny or shocking on Facebook and everyone would be talking about it at school the next day. Sometimes people would continue a conversation that had started online the night before, and I had to either sit quietly or ask someone to fill me in (with mixed results). The result of all this is that I never quite formed bonds with that group, I was always on the periphery, the guy who hung out with them at school.
I assume all of that is more intense today than it was circa 2010.
The "keep your kids off social media" advice only works if a lot of other parents do the same, and if you live in an area where kids can easily visit each other in person.
Additional perspective. I was in the loop at school before tech took over. Despite being the type that keeps in touch I’ve mostly lost contact with everyone from high school. Once folks start families etc it’s game over.
Have some good memories but all in all that time could have been spent more productively in hindsight.
"For reclusive or socially anxious individuals it may even be the majority of interaction"
This is definitely true. But we ought to also consider the risk that tech is creating socially anxious individuals. Some of those kids, if they interacted more in-person and spent less time alone, would eventually find like-minded friends to hang out with.
Ok, so if the world has changed to the point where these kids cannot live satisfied lives without their phones… then we need to start progressively raising the voting age now so they never have any input into how the rest of us live.
We can make them leper colonies filled with screens with up-arrows to click on.
Do you utilize your phone to make plans and remain socially connected with your own friends? Or do you conduct your life completely over landline and computer e-mail?
I would assume that in 2023, phones are a key tool for most adults' satisfied lives too.
Haha, I think my radar for tongue in cheek vs genuinely absurd beliefs has been completely busted by my own lifetime with internet social media! Even on HN.
Culture has changed a lot since we were kids. Online communication is integral, disturbingly so since covid. They'll still hang out, but less than we did and they'll miss a lot since everyone except them was part of the online component.
Pre-social-media I grew up with no TV, only Christian music, limited movies and a whole host of other things that isolated me from my peers. It didn't do anything but build resentment towards my parents and make me thankful they have no say in my life anymore.
I don't now the best approach with kids these days since I don't have any. But I strongly doubt it's the "strict no" route.
What's the downside, kids miss out, might be excluded by their peers maybe even bullied? Would the parent/child relationship suffer? But would the compound effect be better or worse than exposing a young child to social media? I have no idea but my gut feeling is that people would be better off overall without social media. Just a gut feeling though and we shouldn't make policies based on gut feelings obviously.
You don't need to go to the extreme in either direction. Everything is fine in moderation. Kids are terrible at moderating (adults aren't great either), so use the screen time limits that Apple gives you.
I think they were probably just asked to be as accurate as they could, and no more. There's no clear and compelling reason for a blanket recommendation to avoid social media altogether.
But I'm largely with you. As a practical matter, it's easier just to avoid it entirely.
If a parent takes the intervening effort to limit time online, they can take the intervening effort to ensure their child takes part in social activities. The connection is not lost on them.
Social media is addicting in large part because kids are addicted to each other. It's often used as a substitute for hanging out. That barrier doesn't need to be there all the time. Adults get complacent with tech and will bias towards the convenience of staying at home versus going out-into-the-world to do things - if we want to lead by example, changing our own lifestyle helps, but simply accommodating a kid's extra-curriculars will get you out of the house too.
And really, if you prevent a kid from watching 3 hours of television, are they going to do "nothing" instead? No, they'll figure something out to keep entertained. By the same token, they'll want to satisfy their social needs.
One problem is that opting for online chat can be a defense mechanism against going out and being vulnerable in front of other people.
Pro do what you want. Personally I end up working from a coffee shop once a week, I'd be alright with flexible hybrid. I do get some social needs met from family, but I clearly benefit from getting out of the house. With kids, it's easier this way than having your own weekly extra-curriculars (though I try to set time for some). Friends in this city are few and weekends get repetitive.
That's true only if the majority of kids spend the majority of their time online. It's a circular argument. And while one might argue that that is indeed the case today, the question is SHOULD it be the case, tomorrow?
I think it's just an objective fact: given the way social media sites intentionally try to grab and hold onto our attention at any cost, the cons far outweigh the pros and we all (not just children) would be better off consuming less social media. Once the media companies restructure their business model and make their platforms more ethical and sustainable for society, then I have no problem with widespread adoption again.
I think the downsides outweight the upsides. If they're doing sports and clubs, the social isolation will be minimal, other children will have phone bans too, and they won't be at risk from a load of horrendous stuff online.
I’ve experienced a lot of exasperation recently as the sports and clubs that my kids are involved with only communicate the practice schedule and meeting times over WhatsApp.
That doesn't happen in a vacuum. Parents are responsible for enabling their childrens' social lives, it's part of their duties as parents.
Friends live far away? Organize with other parents to drive kids back and forth, or go home together from school. You live in SFZ suburbia? Well, that requires a more drastic change but it's doable.
No reason to let your child any media, unless you want them to be literate or sth.
And social media is less harmful than some traditional ones. It's just that you've been conditioned by the traditional ones to believe they are somehow normal.
