13-year-olds are too young to be on social media, US surgeon general says

[Ana the Ist]

The difference is that for most teens/preteens, social media is "the rest of the web". Interaction with the internet has changed immensely in the past 15-20 years - when I was a teenager, web-based entertainment was flash games, Ebaums World, Homestar Runner, etc, and I made significant use of search engines, both to find information and to find entertainment. These days, Instagram, Snapchat, and Tik Tok (less so Facebook) are the primary windows into the internet for teens and tweens. They're primarily accessing the internet through their phones rather than on computers, and in that environment, a web browser simply doesn't get used.


That's less of a concern than the social interactions they have with their peers. They're not just seeing celebrities looking like that - they're seeing their classmates and friends as well. And they're seeing all the positive affirmation that people get for looking that way on social media via comments, likes, etc. They see people document their journey from "normal" to "beautiful" (leaving out all the pain and suffering and hard work involved) and think that it's more achievable than it actually is. And then there's the bullying that occurs on - and is enabled by - social media.

I have to bring it up but I think it should be said....

These places seem to be a breeding place for women young and old to objectify themselves sexually....for validation.

While I understand the role men play in that....it's not forced upon them, it's chosen. It's not going to go well for the 16-30 yo women of today in another 15 years.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

I have to bring it up but I think it should be said....

These places seem to be a breeding place for women young and old to objectify themselves sexually....for validation.

While I understand the role men play in that....it's not forced upon them, it's chosen. It's not going to go well for the 16-30 yo women of today in another 15 years.

Oh, absolutely. And it's not going to take another 15 years - they're feeling the effects of it now. That's a big part of the push to restrict social media for teens.

 

[RDKirk]

And one of the benefits social media does have, is it's a great way to communicate with friends and family as well...perhaps ones that don't live so close, or during certain times, ones you're not allowed to see in person because the country is shut down for a pandemic.

I wonder if the trade-off is worth it. Shutting down one channel of unrealistic body images (among many) at the cost of taking away a channel of communication.

Social media is not necessary for family communication. A cell phone, maybe, but social media accounts, no.

It would not be technologically difficult for major carriers or Google or Microsoft to set up "family hubs" that provided direct communication between specifically identified sets of phone numbers and "white listed" websites.

 

[Pommer]

And all of it is to sell ham flavored bubble gum, or EV’s .
Lucas was prescient in his seminal THX1138

With the great Robert Duvall in the eponymous role, he slowly withdraws from his society and turns to (what passes for) the religion of this society, the command, the penance, the absolution all required only “buy more, buy more now!”

That dim glowing ball in the sky is the asteroid that is going to wipe out capitalism, once and for all from this planet.
(It’s a metaphor, once people understand how easily it is to “guide” a population with a “certain kind of freedom”…to remain in good-standing in our society is going to make us all “make certain choices”. If you don’t already know what those choices are, well, get to thinking!)

Have a great day!

 

[FireDragon76]

Well I can't claim to never involve myself....it's limited to discussion boards and the like.

When it comes to things like Instagram or Twitter, they seem optimized for attention. Being broadly popular or wildly outside the norm garner attention. This isn't a space for any sort of original thought....or individualism.

What it teaches children is the value of outrage and popular conformity for getting attention or acceptance. I wouldn't call those useless things....but I wouldn't want them shaping a young child's mindset.

Not conformity, tribalism- the breakdown of consensus in favor of polarizing opinions. And it's more of an effect than a cause.

Human beings respond more to negative reinforcement than positive reinforcement. That means that negativity is going to get more attention and be promoted more by the algorithms. This even happens with Youtube. Unless you actively go through and "not like" every other video, suddenly after a few months you'll have recommendations from the algorithm that are full of negativity or sensationalism and aren't genuinely informative. Which leads to something as simple as finding a non-sensationalist video a full-time hobby in itself, after a while. For all the promise of freedom, what is really being sold is attention. And the consumer is the product.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

That's less of a concern than the social interactions they have with their peers. They're not just seeing celebrities looking like that - they're seeing their classmates and friends as well. And they're seeing all the positive affirmation that people get for looking that way on social media via comments, likes, etc. They see people document their journey from "normal" to "beautiful" (leaving out all the pain and suffering and hard work involved) and think that it's more achievable than it actually is. And then there's the bullying that occurs on - and is enabled by - social media.

But even without social media, the items I've bolded they're seeing in real life if we're talking about their classmates and peers.
(where the "better looking" people get treated better and "liked more" at school, while other people get ostracized.

I'd even suggest that the dynamic of "looking for the groups that'll accept you" is pretty similar as well.

In some regards, I see social media as having been a bigger negative influence on adults than kids.

For teens, social media can be an extension of the negative environments and petty behaviors they're dealing with at school (and that's certainly a concern worth analyzing)

However, I have seen social media revert adults back into teens with regards to behavior and dialogue.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

How much of social media do you think is about "staying in touch with family and friends" vs how much is "drawing attention to myself via opinions or images"?

Probably differs based on the person. I use it for group discussions centered around special interests or the occasional pictures of wherever I happen to be if I'm on a trip.

The groups I'm in are mainly geared toward photography and British comedy. And I use it to share my own photos with those groups to get feedback from other photo hobbyists.

There's also great networking opportunities depending on the groups your in. I know for my younger cousin, he was a bit of a loner in school. Via Facebook, he found some regional groups geared toward board gaming (that he was into), and ended up having a dozen or so real-world friends that he still hangs out with "outside of the matrix" so to speak.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

In some regards, I see social media as having been a bigger negative influence on adults than kids.

No arguments from me there - if all social media just vanished today, the world would be much better for it - but it's a lot harder to restrict access to something for adults.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Contrary to yourself....I don't see why the increasing political engagement of children is a good thing. In fact, I can't imagine any reason why it would be a good thing. They're children....and generally, they know very little about the way the world works.

I look at it a little bit differently.

The surgeon general was recommending an age like 17-18 for it.

They're going to be voting at 18. Can't hurt to have a least a little background and start seeing some other ideas and forming some independent opinions before then. Otherwise, 18 year olds voting is basically just an additional weighted vote for their parents or high school social studies teacher (since, absent any other outside discourse), those are going to be the only two political opinions they'd have heard by age 18.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

I look at it a little bit differently.

The surgeon general was recommending an age like 17-18 for it.

They're going to be voting at 18. Can't hurt to have a least a little background and start seeing some other ideas and forming some independent opinions before then. Otherwise, 18 year olds voting is basically just an additional weighted vote for their parents or high school social studies teacher (since, absent any other outside discourse), those are going to be the only two political opinions they'd have heard by age 18.

There are plenty of ways to do this that don't require social media, and as I already said, the political engagement you get from social media is not high-quality. Yes, if you take the time to look up and follow your representatives on social media, you can learn a reasonable amount about them. However, that information generally gets reported in the media as well. You're not missing a lot by not getting it directly from the source, and if you're willing to go to the effort to find out who your representative is and follow them, then you'd probably be willing to look up news articles as well. There are also sites like Ballotpedia that do a good job of aggregating information on candidates and ballot measures all over the country.

Without that effort, any political engagement you get will be heavily influenced by your social circle - your family and friends - and the outcome won't be any different than your "weighted vote from parents/social studies teacher" scenario.

 

[RDKirk]

But even without social media, the items I've bolded they're seeing in real life if we're talking about their classmates and peers.
(where the "better looking" people get treated better and "liked more" at school, while other people get ostracized.

I'd even suggest that the dynamic of "looking for the groups that'll accept you" is pretty similar as well.

The difference is that in the "real world," the sizes of the "better looking" and "liked more" groups are a vastly smaller in proportion than one sees in social media. Sure, there is the classmate girl who is an Aphrodite and the classmate boy who is an Adonis...but there's only a tiny percentage of them in the real world. There are more than enough ordinary people in the real world, even in high school.

On social media, scroll, scroll, scroll, everyone is Aphrodite and Adonis. It skews the perception of teens toward a false reality. They think, regardless of what's before their own eyes in their high school hallways, that they see the real world on their cell phones, and the real world is predominantly people more beautiful than they are.

My wife and I like to go to restaurants with outdoor seating. I sit there, watching couples stroll by, and what I see is a vast majority of very plain-looking men with very plain-looking women. The dazzling beautiful couple is exceedingly rare in the real world.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Not conformity, tribalism- the breakdown of consensus in favor of polarizing opinions. And it's more of an effect than a cause.

Human beings respond more to negative reinforcement than positive reinforcement. That means that negativity is going to get more attention and be promoted more by the algorithms. This even happens with Youtube. Unless you actively go through and "not like" every other video, suddenly after a few months you'll have recommendations from the algorithm that are full of negativity or sensationalism and aren't genuinely informative. Which leads to something as simple as finding a non-sensationalist video a full-time hobby in itself, after a while. For all the promise of freedom, what is really being sold is attention. And the consumer is the product.

I can't really disagree....I've cleared my youtube history when it's gone sideways a few times.

I refuse to buy any service that's gotten for free. They can sell my data but they don't get my dollar. I won't even get into what I know about data selling.

 

[Ana the Ist]

I look at it a little bit differently.

The surgeon general was recommending an age like 17-18 for it.

They're going to be voting at 18. Can't hurt to have a least a little background and start seeing some other ideas and forming some independent opinions before then. Otherwise, 18 year olds voting is basically just an additional weighted vote for their parents or high school social studies teacher (since, absent any other outside discourse), those are going to be the only two political opinions they'd have heard by age 18.

@ThatRobGuy I am rapidly losing faith in democracy entirely. I've watched grown adults so easily manipulated through viral social media and conventional media that it's not as if we're making our own decisions anymore. We have government officials doing stuff so stupid or ugly we should demand their resignation....and people do, whenever the other side does them. Nobody considers why or what the problems really are.

If there's to be some hope for the younger generation....they need to divorce themselves from political discussion entirely and engage it with clear eyes/understanding. Given that our schools now push political agendas....little hope for that.

 

[Ana the Ist]

I look at it a little bit differently.

The surgeon general was recommending an age like 17-18 for it.

They're going to be voting at 18. Can't hurt to have a least a little background and start seeing some other ideas and forming some independent opinions before then. Otherwise, 18 year olds voting is basically just an additional weighted vote for their parents or high school social studies teacher (since, absent any other outside discourse), those are going to be the only two political opinions they'd have heard by age 18.

If I think back...the last serious political discussion I remember the media having was Hillary's loss in 2016. You have to read it relatively early though...because by the end of 2017, the conclusion is overwhelmingly white nationalism and Comey. Read how sober and even handed this article is....

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/11/why-hillary-clinton-lost/507704/

It's a pretty clear, pretty honest, mostly fair analysis. It leans a little left...but not much.

By 2020 in June I remember reading the Atlantic talking about how riots were a good thing sometimes. Voice of the unheard and all that. Full propaganda mode.

That's mainstream media. Social media is even worse.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

No arguments from me there - if all social media just vanished today, the world would be much better for it - but it's a lot harder to restrict access to something for adults.

I guess it would depend on what one was willing to sacrifice (in the name of the "goods") in order to eliminate some of the "bads".

Social awareness and activism (for causes that are good or bad depending on who you ask) is more largely driven by social media, and not legacy media or dinner table conversations within one's own bubble.

I don't think it's any coincidence that social awareness movements (in the era of social media) have gotten a lot more traction, a lot faster than before.

Now, people will obviously have disagreements as to the merits of some of those movements, and question whether or not things progressing that fast (vs. the old pace) is actually a good thing or if there's value in social progress moving more slowly.

But take topics like trans rights (and how quickly advocates were able to build support and awareness and get their viewpoints escalated up into the mainstream and achieve some of their goals), and juxtapose that against the long fight for gay rights that mostly happened in the pre-social media era.

Had the latter had social media at their disposal back then and the ability to reach out to allies in a magnitude and scope that caught the attention of both mainstream media and the political establishment, I imagine they wouldn't have had to fight for 40 years just to get one political party to begrudgingly go along with "civil unions" in 2008 (while still giving lip service to the notion of "traditional marriage"). When social media took off, and became a vehicle for activism, the gay rights movement made more progress in 4 years than it had made in the previous 40.


Other causes and advocacy (like for climate, police reform, and healthcare) would have also taken a very different trajectory without social media -- in terms of both advocacy funding and political representation. If large numbers of 18-25's don't care about climate because they haven't heard it talked about much, then the politicians who typically represent that age group aren't going to have a reason to care about it either.

There have been a few published papers suggesting that the mega-vehicle that is social media has been the main driver in achieving the marijuana reform we've seen in the past decade.

 

[Ana the Ist]

I guess it would depend on what one was willing to sacrifice (in the name of the "goods") in order to eliminate some of the "bads".

Social awareness and activism (for causes that are good or bad depending on who you ask) is more largely driven by social media, and not legacy media or dinner table conversations within one's own bubble.

I don't think it's any coincidence that social awareness movements (in the era of social media) have gotten a lot more traction, a lot faster than before.

Now, people will obviously have disagreements as to the merits of some of those movements, and question whether or not things progressing that fast (vs. the old pace) is actually a good thing or if there's value in social progress moving more slowly.

But take topics like trans rights (and how quickly advocates were able to build support and awareness and get their viewpoints escalated up into the mainstream and achieve some of their goals), and juxtapose that against the long fight for gay rights that mostly happened in the pre-social media era.

Had the latter had social media at their disposal back then and the ability to reach out to allies in a magnitude and scope that caught the attention of both mainstream media and the political establishment, I imagine they wouldn't have had to fight for 40 years just to get one political party to begrudgingly go along with "civil unions" in 2008 (while still giving lip service to the notion of "traditional marriage"). When social media took off, and became a vehicle for activism, the gay rights movement made more progress in 4 years than it had made in the previous 40.


Other causes and advocacy (like for climate, police reform, and healthcare) would have also taken a very different trajectory without social media -- in terms of both advocacy funding and political representation. If large numbers of 18-25's don't care about climate because they haven't heard it talked about much, then the politicians who typically represent that age group aren't going to have a reason to care about it either.

There have been a few published papers suggesting that the mega-vehicle that is social media has been the main driver in achieving the marijuana reform we've seen in the past decade.

I'll be honest....when I think of internet based viral social movements, I don't think of marijuana advocacy. In order, I think of BLM, MeToo, and if you want to include "Trans activism" or whatever that's fine....

If I had to characterize these movements it would be by mostly emotional appeals, and almost a complete lack of understanding or clear goals. The damage they've done is in the billions, lives lost, and little more gained than whatever wealth those who led them grifted from those who followed them.

I don't think I'd hold these social movements up as some sort of positive impact. If anything, they've shown how little problems can be magnified to distract from big problems. They've shown that the mob doesn't care for justice and willingly abandons any presumption of innocence depending upon how many targets are left.


Not participating in any of them is a small source of personal pride.

 

[Pommer]

I don't think I'd hold these social movements up as some sort of positive impact. If anything, they've shown how little problems can be magnified to distract from big problems.

“Big problems”, like systemic racism? jk

 

[Ana the Ist]

“Big problems”, like systemic racism? jk

Bigger problems than the tiny number of unarmed black people killed by police in questionable circumstances...if that's what it was actually about. I seem to recall the goals shifting wildly when the number of viral incidents dwindled. All police are racist didn't really pop up in the narrative until they ran out of white cops and started using Latino and Black ones....and systemic racism wasn't popularized until ideas of subconscious racism fell short of scientific reality.

However, if you paid attention....you'd have noticed that nothing remotely resembling a clear goal ever popped out of those BLM swindlers until about the halfway point when they were really picking up steam. They had an insane list of demands, not unlike a black only ethnostate, that they were seeking. That site got pulled eventually in favor of a much better looking and extremely vague site demanding support from everyone who wasn't racist.

Support for what? Some black communist lesbians and their friends apparently.

Anyway, this is all old news that no one likes to discuss since the media and Democrats both pushed for it....along with about a third of the country. Too embarrassing to admit that it was all a grift.

As for black communities? Worse off by far. It helped them none.

 

[RDKirk]

“Big problems”, like systemic racism? jk

We already knew about racism long before social media. Social media hasn't turned up any new racism.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Probably differs based on the person. I use it for group discussions centered around special interests or the occasional pictures of wherever I happen to be if I'm on a trip.

The groups I'm in are mainly geared toward photography and British comedy. And I use it to share my own photos with those groups to get feedback from other photo hobbyists.

There's also great networking opportunities depending on the groups your in. I know for my younger cousin, he was a bit of a loner in school. Via Facebook, he found some regional groups geared toward board gaming (that he was into), and ended up having a dozen or so real-world friends that he still hangs out with "outside of the matrix" so to speak.

I have absolutely 0 real friends I stay in touch with online.

I have no group hobbies, interests, or pursuits. If anything, it feels like the internet has robbed me of them....but perhaps I let them go myself.

My mind just drifts online between consuming information....on a very wide range of topics and then occasionally anonymously spewing opinions on some of these topics across various boards.

I don't know why people who all share the same opinions group up into these echo chambers and repeat themselves to each other. If you have the same opinion as everyone else....that's ok....but your input isn't needed. If 5 million people already said it....go outside, read a book, do anything else.