Jaqui, what if we lived in a world in which kids were driving around beginning at at 9. most were ok, but 5% got injured or killed. and what if the surgeon general wanted a warning: "Driving automobiles is associated with danger for children under 16". would that be going to far?
Hi Jon - it's a good question! My larger thought is just that the specific wording of any kind of warning label really matters. "Associated with danger" in the case of cars makes sense to me, and the fact that a specific age is given, which matches up with the current legal set-up, would likely be effective for getting parents to not let their kids drive if they're under 16! In the case of mental health, I think it's more complicated - if you tell a parent "this product could cause mental health problems in your teen," I really worry about what parents can actually do with that information, and worry it could backfire. But if a warning label said something like "This product may not be safe for kids under age 13 [or whatever age we choose] for XYZ reasons" - that seems fine to me (similar to what we currently do with movie/video game/TV ratings). And of course I think this cannot be the only thing - as with cars, we need to make the products themselves safer. As I know you agree (!) we can't be telling parents "this might cause mental health problems for you child" but then putting the onus entirely back on them to fix it.
I really appreciate your take on this and completely agree that the warning itself is not helpful. It contributes to the already skyrocketing parental anxiety, which I argue could be actually worse for more kids in a pervasive way that social media is not. (Provocative, I know.) Mental health is complex and we may not even be in the crisis everyone says we are (I wrote about this on my Substack). I think it makes parents' lives even harder to believe that allowing our 14-year-old to enjoy TikTok could cause them a mental health disorder. We need much more nuance in this cultural conversation so thank you for contributing to this nuance!
I think that a warning is a good start. A warning will prompt parents to get more information, to consider their options (for their child), to be aware of the issue and monitor it (closely). If our congress and our tech companies would act properly, in the best interest of children and teens, we would not have to struggle with this issue at this time. My adult children escaped the addiction as teens, but I see it now in them. As I watch my seven and tree year old grandchildren on their devices, I cringe.
Are your seven and three year old grandchildren actually using social media? Or are they playing games and watching videos?
People say "social media" but often times include video games, watching movies/tv, texting/calling, listening to music, reading ebooks, making digital art or writing. All of this can be done on a phone or tablet without social media, so social media regulations aren't going to solve the problem of kids using devices more than adults like.
Great points. They are watching YouTube videos of other children, or TV shows, or playing drawing games. So not really social media, but excessive screen time. Maybe the two are different.
I don't think that's true. In California, we have Prop 65 cancer warning labels on everything and what it has taught everyone is to ignore the labels. Due to the onerous requirements of COPPA, the vast majority of websites forbid accounts for children under 13, and delete accounts when they discover the user is under 13. What that has taught parents is to lie about their children's ages when creating accounts for them.
The topic of social media and children is widely discussed also from the point of view of measures that governments would like to take. In Italy, for example, there was a recent proposal to ban them up to the age of 13 (which was not subsequently discussed). However, I think that such radical measures are not the solution to the problems as hoped. And there's a sentence from this issue - which I really liked! - which I appreciated: "If we're doing something—running a mental health awareness campaign, teaching a certain therapy skill in schools—surely this must be a good thing, whatever it looks like. Increasingly, we're learning that this is not true". There is often this idea that to address a problem something is always better than nothing, but your examples provide valid proof of the opposite and indeed of the greater damage that can be caused. Furthermore, since I also often use practical examples to explain things related to AI and papers, I smiled sincerely when I read the metaphor of cars (I too once used one, but using a Formula 1 car!). Thank you for sharing these reflections based above all on scientific studies and research, peppered with extensive insights.
It’s tricky! Research shows warning labels on tobacco with the side effects of smoking have helped reduce cigarette consumption, but the barrier to social media is so much lower.
Appreciate your jumping right in on this important conversation! I’ve been mulling this over too, and 💯 agree that what most matters is what the label might say. We really need improved attention towards media literacy and what happens in our minds as we scroll. From a cognitive / incidental learning perspective there is no such thing as a free scroll. Rather than pitching labels towards messy correlational data, what about instead pitching the labels from a learning science angle: “you can’t not think about what you consume, so consume wisely” or something like that.
Hey Jacqueline, thanks for this nuanced post. A few things I think are lost in this discussion about the Surgeon General’s demand for a warning label on social media apps:
1. What is “social media?” What platforms should/shouldn’t receive the warning label? YouTube? WhatsApp? Marco Polo? LinkedIn? Substack? Etc….
2. The available evidence suggests that social media is not harmful to youth at the population level. If we require such a low bar of evidence for warning labels, then shouldn’t there also be labels on: candy, sugary drinks, fast food, junk food, the internet (in general), smartphones, TVs, tablets, etc?
Curious about your thoughts. Thanks for offering a nuanced perspective on this whole debate
Yes, let's please define social media! The Surgeon General's Social Media and Youth Mental Health report in 2023 notes that there isn't a single accepted scholarly definition for social media and uses for its purposes the definition: “internet‑based channels that allow
users to opportunistically interact and selectively self‑present, either in real‑time or asynchronously, with both broad and narrow audiences who derive value from user‑generated content and the perception of interaction with others." Using this definition, wouldn't the warning label be applied to every internet site that allows user profiles and the ability to make comments/reviews? Is ravelry causing a youth mental health crisis? ebird? Meetup?
People are concerned about specific features of certain platforms. What are those and how can we address them?
Jaqui, what if we lived in a world in which kids were driving around beginning at at 9. most were ok, but 5% got injured or killed. and what if the surgeon general wanted a warning: "Driving automobiles is associated with danger for children under 16". would that be going to far?
Hi Jon - it's a good question! My larger thought is just that the specific wording of any kind of warning label really matters. "Associated with danger" in the case of cars makes sense to me, and the fact that a specific age is given, which matches up with the current legal set-up, would likely be effective for getting parents to not let their kids drive if they're under 16! In the case of mental health, I think it's more complicated - if you tell a parent "this product could cause mental health problems in your teen," I really worry about what parents can actually do with that information, and worry it could backfire. But if a warning label said something like "This product may not be safe for kids under age 13 [or whatever age we choose] for XYZ reasons" - that seems fine to me (similar to what we currently do with movie/video game/TV ratings). And of course I think this cannot be the only thing - as with cars, we need to make the products themselves safer. As I know you agree (!) we can't be telling parents "this might cause mental health problems for you child" but then putting the onus entirely back on them to fix it.
But do we know the age of when it is less dangerous for social media?
I really appreciate your take on this and completely agree that the warning itself is not helpful. It contributes to the already skyrocketing parental anxiety, which I argue could be actually worse for more kids in a pervasive way that social media is not. (Provocative, I know.) Mental health is complex and we may not even be in the crisis everyone says we are (I wrote about this on my Substack). I think it makes parents' lives even harder to believe that allowing our 14-year-old to enjoy TikTok could cause them a mental health disorder. We need much more nuance in this cultural conversation so thank you for contributing to this nuance!
Thank you Emily! Great points.
I think that a warning is a good start. A warning will prompt parents to get more information, to consider their options (for their child), to be aware of the issue and monitor it (closely). If our congress and our tech companies would act properly, in the best interest of children and teens, we would not have to struggle with this issue at this time. My adult children escaped the addiction as teens, but I see it now in them. As I watch my seven and tree year old grandchildren on their devices, I cringe.
Are your seven and three year old grandchildren actually using social media? Or are they playing games and watching videos?
People say "social media" but often times include video games, watching movies/tv, texting/calling, listening to music, reading ebooks, making digital art or writing. All of this can be done on a phone or tablet without social media, so social media regulations aren't going to solve the problem of kids using devices more than adults like.
Great points. They are watching YouTube videos of other children, or TV shows, or playing drawing games. So not really social media, but excessive screen time. Maybe the two are different.
I don't think that's true. In California, we have Prop 65 cancer warning labels on everything and what it has taught everyone is to ignore the labels. Due to the onerous requirements of COPPA, the vast majority of websites forbid accounts for children under 13, and delete accounts when they discover the user is under 13. What that has taught parents is to lie about their children's ages when creating accounts for them.
OMG. I did not know that.
The topic of social media and children is widely discussed also from the point of view of measures that governments would like to take. In Italy, for example, there was a recent proposal to ban them up to the age of 13 (which was not subsequently discussed). However, I think that such radical measures are not the solution to the problems as hoped. And there's a sentence from this issue - which I really liked! - which I appreciated: "If we're doing something—running a mental health awareness campaign, teaching a certain therapy skill in schools—surely this must be a good thing, whatever it looks like. Increasingly, we're learning that this is not true". There is often this idea that to address a problem something is always better than nothing, but your examples provide valid proof of the opposite and indeed of the greater damage that can be caused. Furthermore, since I also often use practical examples to explain things related to AI and papers, I smiled sincerely when I read the metaphor of cars (I too once used one, but using a Formula 1 car!). Thank you for sharing these reflections based above all on scientific studies and research, peppered with extensive insights.
Thank you!
It’s tricky! Research shows warning labels on tobacco with the side effects of smoking have helped reduce cigarette consumption, but the barrier to social media is so much lower.
Appreciate your jumping right in on this important conversation! I’ve been mulling this over too, and 💯 agree that what most matters is what the label might say. We really need improved attention towards media literacy and what happens in our minds as we scroll. From a cognitive / incidental learning perspective there is no such thing as a free scroll. Rather than pitching labels towards messy correlational data, what about instead pitching the labels from a learning science angle: “you can’t not think about what you consume, so consume wisely” or something like that.
Hey Jacqueline, thanks for this nuanced post. A few things I think are lost in this discussion about the Surgeon General’s demand for a warning label on social media apps:
1. What is “social media?” What platforms should/shouldn’t receive the warning label? YouTube? WhatsApp? Marco Polo? LinkedIn? Substack? Etc….
2. The available evidence suggests that social media is not harmful to youth at the population level. If we require such a low bar of evidence for warning labels, then shouldn’t there also be labels on: candy, sugary drinks, fast food, junk food, the internet (in general), smartphones, TVs, tablets, etc?
Curious about your thoughts. Thanks for offering a nuanced perspective on this whole debate
Yes, let's please define social media! The Surgeon General's Social Media and Youth Mental Health report in 2023 notes that there isn't a single accepted scholarly definition for social media and uses for its purposes the definition: “internet‑based channels that allow
users to opportunistically interact and selectively self‑present, either in real‑time or asynchronously, with both broad and narrow audiences who derive value from user‑generated content and the perception of interaction with others." Using this definition, wouldn't the warning label be applied to every internet site that allows user profiles and the ability to make comments/reviews? Is ravelry causing a youth mental health crisis? ebird? Meetup?
People are concerned about specific features of certain platforms. What are those and how can we address them?