Prohibition doesn’t work. Educating consumers and holding companies accountable works. It historically takes time though for that pressure to accumulate to the point of having political will.
We also need teen social media education - like we have about alcohol and drugs. Where we’re frank about the real research. Don’t moralize. Talk about the realities of the situation.
Excessive drinking was curtailed by 70% during the alcohol prohibition era, and acute drinking was a problem (it was more concentrated).
There is zero doubt how much healthier at least some people would have been.
The price paid was limiting freedom for many, and some increase in crime.
Allowing children to smoke and drink from age 12 would be a social disaster, it's not even an argument - obviously - the 'prohibition' works - and in that case, there's nary any negative externality.
Yes, there is 'lost economic potential' from not having kids buy smokes, there is a degree of authoritarianism, but those are trade-offs we are happy to make.
The question is the degree of restrictions on basic freedom, and the direct / indirect externalizations - aka 'underground pubs', 'black market', 'lost benefits' etc.
For social media - kids 'sneaking' onto regular social media is hardly an enormous hazard.
There are also 'critical mass' problems - for example, its' very hard to get people away from a system if they will 'feel left out'.
The negative externalizations of a teen social media ban are likely most related to the positive aspects of social media aka community, connection etc outside of school.
Twitch, for example, I think is fine for kids.
There is probably a happy medium that's a bit nicer, for example, banning phones in schools is something that everyone seems to be ok with - that sets a good baseline.
We may want other social media places for 12-18 to have parental opt-ins and to be a bit more assertive around harassment and bullying - which is a very serious thing, and very pernicious as well. It's really hard to monitor.
Creating 'PG spaces' is probably what most parents want.
The worst negative externalization from all of this is probably state-implemented age verification, identity issues, and the leaks, failures and excessive authoritarianism that can come about aka 'slippery slope', which is a serious argument. Even then - there are smart ways to do this which avoid many of those risks.
The negative externality is the huge amount of young adults damaging their bodies with excessive alcohol consumption in college because they never learned to drink healthily. The US with its late legal age for alcohol has a far bigger problem with youth alcohol abuse than European countries where youth are introduced to alcohol earlier.
Given that alcohol is carcinogenic, there is no such thing as "drinking healthily".
That point aside, alcoholism rates in the Eastern EU are much higher than the US. And Russia/Belarus leads the world. I don't think younger drinking age correlates very well with reduced rates of alcoholism.
The legal age for alcohol is 18 in France.
This idea of 'US binging' doesn't really hold that much water, though one could very well argue that 21 is just 'too old' - the fact is, these are as much cultural issues as anything else.
Same with Japan, they are 'polite drunk', it's not even quite the same thing.
Take the argument and apply it to smoking or cocaine, fentanyl and you see that it doesn't really work out.
It really depends.
US could have lower drinking age, possibly 'permitted with parents at 16' - but - a much more responsible culture overall as well. It's hard.
I don't disagree we need to look at algorithmic recommendations as a major issue, but these social media bans are not that. The fact they are all being brought about globally at the same time suggests some ulterior motives.
Fundamentally, the idea you're going to hide your kid from social media until some arbitrary age, require the entire populace to register identification when visiting any website, and then open the floodgates on these kids at 16 is absolutely moronic. Two years of brain development doesn't suddenly make them learn how to be responsible with it.
As much as Europe wants to abdicate their parenting responsibilities to the state, at some point you have to draw the line and own up to some level of personal responsibility for raising your children.
You can't hide your kids from reality if you want to raise strong, independent and actualized children who will make good choices.
Which is why is also not a solution. Both are bad solutions because we drag our feet into creating safe products for everyone.
Also, you can have both: substance education and prohibition. Those factors need not be exclusive.
There are groups that would love to be in full control of visible information and parents rightly concerned about social media use by kids.
A police investigator trying to do his job is 100% sure he can solve crimes this way, to him, there is zero doubt about the benefit of being able to get info from social media, it's a moral concern.
The anti-terrorist squad - same. They see all sorts of threats, daily they are truly concerned, they're all waiting for horrible things to happen and in each case they 'knew they could have prevented it'.
Then you get corporate interests, who just want to 'sell gear to make money'
Maybe it even works really well ... because of 'checks and balances'.
But then, the 'checks and balances' start to fail, either from corruption, bad legislation, legal rulings etc.
Those forces all collide into the 'slippery slope'
Not "every parent knows this"; lots of parents fiercely oppose their kids being banned from access to decentralized information and communication sources. Would you prefer your kids get all their information from textbooks written by Glisaine Maxwell's father, all their news from sources owned by zionist-aligned billionaries?
Crucially, parents can trivially allow their kids to access whatever information they want.
Finally 'textbooks written by such and such' is delving a bit into conspiratorial inanity.
It's often buried because the people making money dislike it, so much so that they will lobby the government to impose wide bans. Especially if:
* The ban makes somebody else pay most of the costs of protecting "the children" against their design-choices or business-model.
* The ban gives them a blanket pass for almost any exploitative design against adults or other acceptable targets.
It absolutely does. Just look at smoking and alcohol.
> We also need teen social media education
Sure, that too. But to think that it's enough is very naive. Unlike alcohol and drugs, social media is being pushed on teens at every turn. If there was a drug dealer on every corner, and drugs were free and tasted great, the education on drugs wouldn't go that far, honestly.
IMHO the solution should involve defining what's natural social media and what is predatory social media. The natural one can be a system that connects real people with each other and operates discovery algorithms that have %100 open source and run on open data. When its real people interacting you can educate around it, you can have it with anonymous accounts too but you can develop protections against bad actors by actually looking into the thing to see what's happening. In real world that's how people interact and although damage from things like lying or gossip still exist we also have ways to navigate around it by teaching manners, ethics, etiquette, politeness, fairness etc.
Then there's the unnatural social media, that is most of the social media today. It is not a natural human interactions, it is managed human interactions for profit or influence. Information is hidden from the participants but it is not hidden from the host of the gathering and the host develops tools to create conflicts or control for its own benefit.
My personal experience is also that 17 year olds in countries where the legal drinking age is 16 drink more than 17 year olds where the drinking age is 18, but I don't have numbers on it.
When are we ever going to get beyond raising awareness/educating bad/arguably-bad things? All of these manufactured wants, needs—totally synthetic. The business model is to prey on people. But the answer is yet more things to lecture about?
By going beyond that I mean real alternatives. Like Christian abstinence organizations might not just have a say-no-to-alcohol stance, sit at home and be bored. No, they sometimes even have social gatherings and activities. They do the same thing for students. The stance towards alcohol-abstinent students is not simply, well you can choose not to drink but heh, most of your peers drink and most of the late-night activities revolve around that. They offer alternatives: alcohol-free activities.
What would I give to be able to opt out of the things that I find bad for myself? Like really, ban myself from say buying cigarettes with my credit card. But is that ever on the table? No. Just the discourse pit of freedom and unfreedom. Where freedom happens to coincide with Big Tech’s bottom line.
And education.