Thought-provoking as always. I do think it's pretty important to separate out what the messaging should be to parents, vs. the messaging to kids.
To kids, I think we (the ones out here in public discourse, resisting the default cultural opt-in to 100% social media saturation and advocating a more thoughtful approach—can I generalize we TechnoSapiens as that?) should spend more time showing rather than telling kids what they're missing, and gently but firmly pointing back to history (what were your grandparents capable of at age 17? how about *their* grandparents? what has made you believe you're not capable? etc.) and examples of what we might aspire to or avoid. You catch more flies with honey, now as ever. And tbh, they learn more by watching what you DO by than listening to what you SAY. If you're living life everyday in the real world, relatively happy and healthy and not hanging bleary-eyed on every hot take of the moment, chances are they'll notice that and (eventually) connect it to how you spend your time differently than the rest of the miserable hulking masses. 😝
To parents, I think we need to emphatically punt the tired "Well everybody else is doing it, and it would require, like actual effort to assert even a tiny semblance of a rule in my household" narrative into the stratosphere. The fact is, you have agency. And you are making a clear decision, today and every day, as to how technology's used in your house and on devices you provide. Whether you want to acknowledge it or not is on you. I recognize that not every parent will come up with the same expectations in their household as I have, and that's okay! But I think there needs to be a push toward intentionality and accountability. Putcha grown-up pants on. We can do hard things.
And while there's not always a bright line separating those two spheres, I agree that neither is served by sensationalism and hyperbolic language. That said, I think this is one of the few topics that's serious enough that just stating the information and giving verifiable examples can be shocking enough. It's not sensationalism if what's being reported really IS that serious.
Re: news coverage, it's less interesting to me whether sensationalist language / a "tone of fear" is being used around social media topics and more interesting to know whether it's any *more* sensationalist than other topics. I mean, pick a headline, any headline. In just about any mainstream media outlet, about just about all the topics, they're so hyperbolic that they're becoming straight-up meaningless. So I don't see a reason to think that this arena is any worse. My instinct is it's following the general trend that's exactly what online monetization biases for: "Hey if we make this outrage-inducing, people will click on it more! So let's make everything outrage-inducing, ALL THE TIME!" This is certainly not unique to social media discourse. I don't even think it's part of some big evil plan. It's just simply how they make more money. It's how they make the graph go up and to the right. So of course they've been doing it as much as possible, lo these many years.
I'm interested in hearing what youths have to say about the topic, and that *has* been surveyed and reported on in popular sources (they have mixed feelings at best). But I don't think they should necessarily be driving the discussion. As with "whether or not only ice cream for dinner is fine and good," and "whether or not we should totally go get matchy tattoos together right now with all our 12yo friends," the answers can be predictable and short-sighted. It's still important for there to be grown-ups in the room. Social media is full of things that Cannot Be Unseen (ask me how I know), and there are some things that kids can't properly consent to and rightfully so because.........they're kids.
As a 24-year-old girl I met at a party a couple months ago said after I mentioned I used to work at Tumblr, "Wow that site really did a number on me. I wish I had gotten a chance to be a kid longer. I grew up really fast. My mom just...had no idea, really."
So many fascinating ideas here! Thanks for the comment Tess. Such a great point about whether the "tone of fear"/sensationalized content is worse when it comes to social media versus any other topic. We really need a comparative study looking at headlines about kids' online safety versus others!
I'm fresh off of watching The Social Dilemma (2020) https://thesocialdilemma.com/ and am feeling pretty spooked about social media in general, and I'm saying this as someone who posts regularly on TikTok! I'm also a social scientist using TikTok to research medical conversations. But the thing that I'm struggling with is how Tech companies are incentivized to maintain ours and our kids' attention within the apps, which is documented in The Social Dilemma. The upshot being that we're a species captivated by moving pictures and easily manipulated, and that our digital native kids aren't able to have enough reference points outside of this paradigm to envision an alternative (I'm not fully sold on that point). But it feels like an updated warning of Gil-Scott Heron's "The revolution will not be televised," which is a powerful and relevant contestation of our evolving screen-based culture.
In discussions with the college students I teach in gen ed English, they have been unanimous in their desire for some top-down regulation on social media. They confess to basically feeling hurt/damaged/confused by their on/off addictions to social media apps and they wish there was political will behind limiting their exposure to them in the first place. I was completely surprised by this narrative when I heard it across a number of student led discussions.
I'll be the first to say that I've genuinely connected with people on TikTok. I've had a number of off-app text threads, phone calls, and zoom meetings because of the app. When I thought it was going away on Sunday, I downloaded all my content, comments, and transcripts for my research, too, only to reopen the app less than 24 hours later to a hyperpoliticized message that appeared to reiterate the thesis of The Social Dilemma, which is that although these platforms seem to offer positive benefits toward human connection, there is a much more sinister agenda at play related to political polarization and social control.
This is all leading up to my question, which is, have you seen The Social Dilemma? And is there any research in your world about the implications of the social infrastructure of these apps on our kids, rather than just their immediate impacts from viewing time or types of content consumed? Maybe restating this... are there "big picture" critiques people in your field have about social media? I know you're a psychologist, not a political scientist, but I'm curious about if this aspect of social media is brought up?
Thanks so much for this thoughtful comment, Caroline! There's so much here and I'm not sure I have a great answer, but I will say that, in my view, there seems to be some consensus in the psychology world that *something* needs to change when it comes to these platforms - that they're not all bad, and can have benefits for some kids, but they do have real risks and we likely need to take steps (i.e., legislation) to address some of those. In case helpful here's a guide to a lot of the writing I've done here on this topic - https://technosapiens.substack.com/p/teens-phones-and-mental-health
With all due respect, Dr. Nesi, doesn't your #2 point contradict your #3? Isn't your middle section (responsibly) providing that same narrative? "Despite a national desire to put our fingers in our ears and scream “la-la-la,” kids under 13 are using these platforms. We need to either do a better job of preventing that, or make the platforms safer for kids that age. Academic Pediatrics." I don't disagree with you per se (that the narrative is unfortunate, bad-newsy) but I think the point is that many of those news outlets are responsibly using research and data as well and the costs just weigh a lot—they outweigh the benefits esp. when we're talking about kids and young adolescents. No? I've tried to look beyond journalism (although I support journalism and media outlets that still employ fact-checkers) for evidence (studies, experts on podcasts) and I still see way more costs than benefits.
I don’t think she’s fear-mongering in her statement. That’s the distinction between the sections as I read it. I also took “national desire” to basically mean parents, because anecdotally I also see many parents ignoring what their kids do online while also complaining about social media.
I don't think either of us used the term fear-mongering, though. I used the word 'responsibly'a few times. I don't think fear-mongering is responsible. Just wanted to clarify that, thanks Aris!
It's a good question! I think it's a balance between recognizing that there are real risks, and we need to address them, while also trying to have that conversation in a productive way that doesn't simply strike fear or exaggerate the dangers. I also think there is a separate conversation to be had about kids under the age of 13, who are technically not supposed to be on the platforms at all, and what responsibility platforms have to protect those kids!
Good write up Techno Sapian. I’m glad my daughter & son in law are strict about screen time for their boys 4 & 6. The 4 year old really glommed onto it when they used the tablet for little guy’s surgery experience. Then back to riding bikes, skiing, soccer & no phones or internet for the boys & they are happy. The world will be upon them soon enough.
Thought-provoking as always. I do think it's pretty important to separate out what the messaging should be to parents, vs. the messaging to kids.
To kids, I think we (the ones out here in public discourse, resisting the default cultural opt-in to 100% social media saturation and advocating a more thoughtful approach—can I generalize we TechnoSapiens as that?) should spend more time showing rather than telling kids what they're missing, and gently but firmly pointing back to history (what were your grandparents capable of at age 17? how about *their* grandparents? what has made you believe you're not capable? etc.) and examples of what we might aspire to or avoid. You catch more flies with honey, now as ever. And tbh, they learn more by watching what you DO by than listening to what you SAY. If you're living life everyday in the real world, relatively happy and healthy and not hanging bleary-eyed on every hot take of the moment, chances are they'll notice that and (eventually) connect it to how you spend your time differently than the rest of the miserable hulking masses. 😝
To parents, I think we need to emphatically punt the tired "Well everybody else is doing it, and it would require, like actual effort to assert even a tiny semblance of a rule in my household" narrative into the stratosphere. The fact is, you have agency. And you are making a clear decision, today and every day, as to how technology's used in your house and on devices you provide. Whether you want to acknowledge it or not is on you. I recognize that not every parent will come up with the same expectations in their household as I have, and that's okay! But I think there needs to be a push toward intentionality and accountability. Putcha grown-up pants on. We can do hard things.
And while there's not always a bright line separating those two spheres, I agree that neither is served by sensationalism and hyperbolic language. That said, I think this is one of the few topics that's serious enough that just stating the information and giving verifiable examples can be shocking enough. It's not sensationalism if what's being reported really IS that serious.
Re: news coverage, it's less interesting to me whether sensationalist language / a "tone of fear" is being used around social media topics and more interesting to know whether it's any *more* sensationalist than other topics. I mean, pick a headline, any headline. In just about any mainstream media outlet, about just about all the topics, they're so hyperbolic that they're becoming straight-up meaningless. So I don't see a reason to think that this arena is any worse. My instinct is it's following the general trend that's exactly what online monetization biases for: "Hey if we make this outrage-inducing, people will click on it more! So let's make everything outrage-inducing, ALL THE TIME!" This is certainly not unique to social media discourse. I don't even think it's part of some big evil plan. It's just simply how they make more money. It's how they make the graph go up and to the right. So of course they've been doing it as much as possible, lo these many years.
I'm interested in hearing what youths have to say about the topic, and that *has* been surveyed and reported on in popular sources (they have mixed feelings at best). But I don't think they should necessarily be driving the discussion. As with "whether or not only ice cream for dinner is fine and good," and "whether or not we should totally go get matchy tattoos together right now with all our 12yo friends," the answers can be predictable and short-sighted. It's still important for there to be grown-ups in the room. Social media is full of things that Cannot Be Unseen (ask me how I know), and there are some things that kids can't properly consent to and rightfully so because.........they're kids.
As a 24-year-old girl I met at a party a couple months ago said after I mentioned I used to work at Tumblr, "Wow that site really did a number on me. I wish I had gotten a chance to be a kid longer. I grew up really fast. My mom just...had no idea, really."
So many fascinating ideas here! Thanks for the comment Tess. Such a great point about whether the "tone of fear"/sensationalized content is worse when it comes to social media versus any other topic. We really need a comparative study looking at headlines about kids' online safety versus others!
I'm fresh off of watching The Social Dilemma (2020) https://thesocialdilemma.com/ and am feeling pretty spooked about social media in general, and I'm saying this as someone who posts regularly on TikTok! I'm also a social scientist using TikTok to research medical conversations. But the thing that I'm struggling with is how Tech companies are incentivized to maintain ours and our kids' attention within the apps, which is documented in The Social Dilemma. The upshot being that we're a species captivated by moving pictures and easily manipulated, and that our digital native kids aren't able to have enough reference points outside of this paradigm to envision an alternative (I'm not fully sold on that point). But it feels like an updated warning of Gil-Scott Heron's "The revolution will not be televised," which is a powerful and relevant contestation of our evolving screen-based culture.
In discussions with the college students I teach in gen ed English, they have been unanimous in their desire for some top-down regulation on social media. They confess to basically feeling hurt/damaged/confused by their on/off addictions to social media apps and they wish there was political will behind limiting their exposure to them in the first place. I was completely surprised by this narrative when I heard it across a number of student led discussions.
I'll be the first to say that I've genuinely connected with people on TikTok. I've had a number of off-app text threads, phone calls, and zoom meetings because of the app. When I thought it was going away on Sunday, I downloaded all my content, comments, and transcripts for my research, too, only to reopen the app less than 24 hours later to a hyperpoliticized message that appeared to reiterate the thesis of The Social Dilemma, which is that although these platforms seem to offer positive benefits toward human connection, there is a much more sinister agenda at play related to political polarization and social control.
This is all leading up to my question, which is, have you seen The Social Dilemma? And is there any research in your world about the implications of the social infrastructure of these apps on our kids, rather than just their immediate impacts from viewing time or types of content consumed? Maybe restating this... are there "big picture" critiques people in your field have about social media? I know you're a psychologist, not a political scientist, but I'm curious about if this aspect of social media is brought up?
Thanks so much for this thoughtful comment, Caroline! There's so much here and I'm not sure I have a great answer, but I will say that, in my view, there seems to be some consensus in the psychology world that *something* needs to change when it comes to these platforms - that they're not all bad, and can have benefits for some kids, but they do have real risks and we likely need to take steps (i.e., legislation) to address some of those. In case helpful here's a guide to a lot of the writing I've done here on this topic - https://technosapiens.substack.com/p/teens-phones-and-mental-health
With all due respect, Dr. Nesi, doesn't your #2 point contradict your #3? Isn't your middle section (responsibly) providing that same narrative? "Despite a national desire to put our fingers in our ears and scream “la-la-la,” kids under 13 are using these platforms. We need to either do a better job of preventing that, or make the platforms safer for kids that age. Academic Pediatrics." I don't disagree with you per se (that the narrative is unfortunate, bad-newsy) but I think the point is that many of those news outlets are responsibly using research and data as well and the costs just weigh a lot—they outweigh the benefits esp. when we're talking about kids and young adolescents. No? I've tried to look beyond journalism (although I support journalism and media outlets that still employ fact-checkers) for evidence (studies, experts on podcasts) and I still see way more costs than benefits.
I don’t think she’s fear-mongering in her statement. That’s the distinction between the sections as I read it. I also took “national desire” to basically mean parents, because anecdotally I also see many parents ignoring what their kids do online while also complaining about social media.
I don't think either of us used the term fear-mongering, though. I used the word 'responsibly'a few times. I don't think fear-mongering is responsible. Just wanted to clarify that, thanks Aris!
It's a good question! I think it's a balance between recognizing that there are real risks, and we need to address them, while also trying to have that conversation in a productive way that doesn't simply strike fear or exaggerate the dangers. I also think there is a separate conversation to be had about kids under the age of 13, who are technically not supposed to be on the platforms at all, and what responsibility platforms have to protect those kids!
Good write up Techno Sapian. I’m glad my daughter & son in law are strict about screen time for their boys 4 & 6. The 4 year old really glommed onto it when they used the tablet for little guy’s surgery experience. Then back to riding bikes, skiing, soccer & no phones or internet for the boys & they are happy. The world will be upon them soon enough.
PS I'm not an expert but I also see the costs with my own eyeballs and that's something too :)