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

[ThatRobGuy]

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

Meta, Twitter and other social media platforms currently allow 13-year-olds to join.

www.goodmorningamerica.com

U.S. Surgeon General Dr. Vivek Murthy said he believes 13 is too young for children to be on social media platforms, despite some of the most popular platforms, including Facebook and Instagram, allowing users to be that age.
Murthy told CNN on Sunday that he believes being on social media "does a disservice" to kids early in their teen years.
"I, personally, based on the data I've seen, believe that 13 is too early," Murthy said on "CNN Newsroom." "It's a time where it's really important for us to be thoughtful about what's going into how they think about their own self-worth and their relationships and the skewed and often distorted environment of social media often does a disservice to many of those children."

I have mixed feelings about this.

On one hand, I understand the concerns (like the ones pertaining to young people having unrealistic expectations and body image issues)...but many of those concerns would apply to the internet, in general , as well as several other various forms of entertainment like TV and Movies.

I understand the concerns about young people being exposed to certain ideas and misinformation that could skew some of their thinking, but again, that stuff is on TV and the regular old internet.


Cyber bullying is something that's a little more unique to social media, in that, while the web is full of sites that can spew conspiracy theories, and depict people who have unrealistic looks and bodies, you're not likely to go to a random website or or see a movie where a bunch of people start insulting you, personally, by name.

On the other hand, I think it's a good thing that more and more young people want to become politically engaged, and social media has become the primary vehicle for that. And it's a net positive when people have more ways to communicate with each other.

...and, I think Muthy's assessment is giving some mixed messages here given the administration he's working for. It wasn't too long ago when people were having conversations about advocating for allowing 16 year olds to vote or have an abortion without parental notification/consent. And we're currently having national-level conversations about whether or not to allow adolescents to make major life-altering medical decisions.

If a 15-16 year old is old enough to vote and obtain medical procedures without parental consent, and people are talking about trusting their judgment with regards to certain forms of gender affirmation care, it's kind of tough to sell the idea of "but, yeah, we don't think you're old enough for an instagram account"

 

[RocksInMyHead]

On the other hand, I think it's a good thing that more and more young people want to become politically engaged, and social media has become the primary vehicle for that. And it's a net positive when people have more ways to communicate with each other.

The "political engagement" that comes from social media is very superficial and often littered with inaccuracies, conspiracy theories, and unnecessary vitriol. Social media is definitely not the tool that I would use to introduce teens to politics.

...and, I think Muthy's assessment is giving some mixed messages here given the administration he's working for. It wasn't too long ago when people were having conversations about advocating for allowing 16 year olds to vote

Which have gone nowhere for good reason. 16-year-olds are nowhere near mature enough to vote. I'd argue that 18-year-olds aren't either, but because they're adults in the eye of the law, there's not much that can be done about that.

or have an abortion without parental notification/consent.

There is no situation in which a child should be forced to have a child without her consent - even by her parents. Laying aside the issue that it's her body in question, outcomes are typically poor for both mother and child in this situation. In general, most cases where a teen is seeking an abortion without parental consent are because she believes that her parents will not allow it.

And we're currently having national-level conversations about whether or not to allow adolescents to make major life-altering medical decisions.

With regards to transgender treatments (I believe that's what you're referring to here), these are not decisions that are being made by teenagers on their own - they are making the decision with the input and guidance of their doctors. If their doctors do not believe that they are a good candidate for treatment, no amount of begging will change that.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

The "political engagement" that comes from social media is very superficial and often littered with inaccuracies, conspiracy theories, and unnecessary vitriol. Social media is definitely not the tool that I would use to introduce teens to politics.

It is superficial in some ways, but it's the primary vehicle by which candidates and politicians communicate with their constituents and potential voters. Your average Senator gets 0-6 nationally televised interviews per year (and those are usually brief and lacking substance), yet, their Twitter and Facebook feeds have hundreds of thousands of followers who get to see what they have to say on a regular basis.

Which have gone nowhere for good reason. 16-year-olds are nowhere near mature enough to vote. I'd argue that 18-year-olds aren't either, but because they're adults in the eye of the law, there's not much that can be done about that.

The voting age is held hostage by the age that one can be drafted. Increasing the voting age would require raising the age at one has to register for selective service... and that's fair. If you can draft someone to send them halfway across the world to kill people they don't know for reasons they don't understand, they get to vote.

There is no situation in which a child should be forced to have a child without her consent - even by her parents. Laying aside the issue that it's her body in question, outcomes are typically poor for both mother and child in this situation. In general, most cases where a teen is seeking an abortion without parental consent are because she believes that her parents will not allow it.

I would agree the outcomes are poor, and I'm not even arguing against the procedure itself, but the parents should at least know about it...primarily, so they can take steps to make sure it doesn't happen again.

The luxury of having sex without your parents knowing about it "because if they found out, I might get in trouble" is reserved for those of us who are adults who can afford to do in places that aren't under their roof.

With regards to transgender treatments (I believe that's what you're referring to here), these are not decisions that are being made by teenagers on their own - they are making the decision with the input and guidance of their doctors. If their doctors do not believe that they are a good candidate for treatment, no amount of begging will change that.

The initial decision is being made by the teen. "I think I'm actually a boy" or "I think I'm actually a girl" coming from someone who's not even old enough to have a facebook account (for the reasons of "people at that age can't as effectively discern what's real or not" and "are at the age where they're still discovering themself"...the surgeon general's words) isn't a strong defense. He's basically saying "14 year olds are impressionable, easily persuaded into things, and prone to impulsiveness"

And the science itself on this is still in its infancy. While the doctors may be well-intentioned, if there's very little data on something, and the data that is there is mixed, a doctor's guidance doesn't amount to much. (to no fault of their own) Which is why several European countries (who are far more progressive than we are) have pumped the brakes a little bit on it.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

I would agree the outcomes are poor, and I'm not even arguing against the procedure itself, but the parents should at least know about it...primarily, so they can take steps to make sure it doesn't happen again.

The luxury of having sex without your parents knowing about it "because if they found out, I might get in trouble" is reserved for those of us who are adults who can afford to do in places that aren't under their roof.

The issue is not with those who simply fear getting in trouble. It's with those who will force them to keep the child against their wishes, or those who would kick their child out for having an abortion. In an ideal world, of course everyone could have a mature discussion on the topic, but we don't live in an ideal world.

The initial decision is being made by the teen. "I think I'm actually a boy" or "I think I'm actually a girl" coming from someone who's not even old enough to have a facebook account (for the reasons of "people at that age can't as effectively discern what's real or not" and "are at the age where they're still discovering themself"...the surgeon general's words) isn't a strong defense. He's basically saying "14 year olds are impressionable, easily persuaded into things, and prone to impulsiveness"

There is absolutely nothing you can do about the teen making that initial decision - they will make it whether they are "allowed" to or not. It's then up to the doctors to evaluate the patient and make medical recommendations - something that they are, frankly, better-qualified to do than the teen's parents.

And the science itself on this is still in its infancy. While the doctors may be well-intentioned, if there's very little data on something, and the data that is there is mixed, a doctor's guidance doesn't amount to much. (to no fault of their own) Which is why several European countries (who are far more progressive than we are) have pumped the brakes a little bit on it.

No real arguments from me there - I was just pointing out that your framing of the issue was incorrect.

 

[Desk trauma]

The voting age is held hostage by the age that one can be drafted.

The thing that holds the voting age hostage is the thing that it would take to alter it, a constitutional amendment. With our current political landscape any amendment is a dead letter so until our current log jam breaks the voting age is, and will remain, 18.

That said this does remind me of the pain I feel over of Herschel Walkers failed bid for the senate.. His idea to disenfranchise every voter born after 1990 was an idea whose time and come and deserves an advocate in the senate due to its sound logical basis and totally not being a produce of forgetting that 1990 was 32, not ten, years ago.

 

[FireDragon76]

I don't see a problem with it. It aligns very well with scientific research that social media is damaging, particularly for girls. I believe even 13 may not even be old enough. Teenagers need much more face time to develop real-world relationship skills in an embodied way.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

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

Meta, Twitter and other social media platforms currently allow 13-year-olds to join.

www.goodmorningamerica.com

U.S. Surgeon General Dr. Vivek Murthy said he believes 13 is too young for children to be on social media platforms, despite some of the most popular platforms, including Facebook and Instagram, allowing users to be that age.
Murthy told CNN on Sunday that he believes being on social media "does a disservice" to kids early in their teen years.
"I, personally, based on the data I've seen, believe that 13 is too early," Murthy said on "CNN Newsroom." "It's a time where it's really important for us to be thoughtful about what's going into how they think about their own self-worth and their relationships and the skewed and often distorted environment of social media often does a disservice to many of those children."

I have mixed feelings about this.

On one hand, I understand the concerns (like the ones pertaining to young people having unrealistic expectations and body image issues)...but many of those concerns would apply to the internet, in general , as well as several other various forms of entertainment like TV and Movies.

I understand the concerns about young people being exposed to certain ideas and misinformation that could skew some of their thinking, but again, that stuff is on TV and the regular old internet.


Cyber bullying is something that's a little more unique to social media, in that, while the web is full of sites that can spew conspiracy theories, and depict people who have unrealistic looks and bodies, you're not likely to go to a random website or or see a movie where a bunch of people start insulting you, personally, by name.

On the other hand, I think it's a good thing that more and more young people want to become politically engaged, and social media has become the primary vehicle for that. And it's a net positive when people have more ways to communicate with each other.

...and, I think Muthy's assessment is giving some mixed messages here given the administration he's working for. It wasn't too long ago when people were having conversations about advocating for allowing 16 year olds to vote or have an abortion without parental notification/consent. And we're currently having national-level conversations about whether or not to allow adolescents to make major life-altering medical decisions.

If a 15-16 year old is old enough to vote and obtain medical procedures without parental consent, and people are talking about trusting their judgment with regards to certain forms of gender affirmation care, it's kind of tough to sell the idea of "but, yeah, we don't think you're old enough for an instagram account"

13 =/= 16

 

[FireDragon76]

The "political engagement" that comes from social media is very superficial and often littered with inaccuracies, conspiracy theories, and unnecessary vitriol. Social media is definitely not the tool that I would use to introduce teens to politics.

Yes, exactly. It's a dumpster fire the vast majority of the time.

Life is short. We should value our lives more than to waste them on such a pointless effort that can only result in our unhappiness. Go out and talk to real people, or better yet, take a walk in nature... all are better for you that trading barbs with random people you'll likely never meet on Twitter or Facebook.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

There is absolutely nothing you can do about the teen making that initial decision - they will make it whether they are "allowed" to or not. It's then up to the doctors to evaluate the patient and make medical recommendations - something that they are, frankly, better-qualified to do than the teen's parents.

For the doctors involved in some of the decisions that look to put the child in the drivers seat, while some may be exercising caution and discretion, there are others that are acting more like advocates than medical practitioners.

For instance, in one such case (that happened in my home state of Ohio), the medical entity that pushed for a child to be able to make the choice, and to have the parental discretion removed from the equation was the Cincinnati Transgender Health Clinic.

Even the judge that ruled in favor of the medical providers and child, and ruled in favor of removing the parents from the decision making process (in that particular case), expressed some concerns about the procedure by which that institution was operating.

The court expressed “concern” that the Transgender Program at the Cincinnati Children’s Hospital deemed “100% of the patients…who present for care” to be “appropriate candidates for continued gender treatment.” --and used the analogy of "everything's a nail to someone who has a hammer"

No real arguments from me there - I was just pointing out that your framing of the issue was incorrect.

If you agree that the science is still in its infancy, then I think it goes without saying that for this subject, the "qualification gap" between parent and physician isn't as wide as it would be for established conditions. Given that many countries have pumped the brakes on this sort of treatment because doctors have raised concerns, we don't even know which doctors are the correct ones yet.

The American Academy of Family Physicians did an interesting survey. Among surveyed physicians, while the vast majority said they felt comfortable in providing treatment (meaning the condition itself didn't bother them), but over 30% said they didn't feel confident in treating a transgender individuals due to various factors primarily rooted in clinical reasons... For instance, the diagnostic and treatment paths for males and females are different based on symptoms presented, and when you have someone who's taking cross-sex hormones, it's a whole new set of diagnostic paths one has to go down and a lot more variables that a lot of doctors, admittedly, are unfamiliar with.

 

[Arcangl86]

The thing that holds the voting age hostage is the thing that it would take to alter it, a constitutional amendment. With our current political landscape any amendment is a dead letter so until our current log jam breaks the voting age is, and will remain, 18.

That said this does remind me of the pain I feel over of Herschel Walkers failed bid for the senate.. His idea to disenfranchise every voter born after 1990 was an idea whose time and come and deserves an advocate in the senate due to its sound logical basis and totally not being a produce of forgetting that 1990 was 32, not ten, years ago.

IIRC the amendment sets the maximum age that the franchise can be granted at, not the exact age. So while states can't stop 18 year olds from voting, there is nothing to prevent them from allowing 16 year olds to vote.

 

[Desk trauma]

IIRC the amendment sets the maximum age that the franchise can be granted at, not the exact age. So while states can't stop 18 year olds from voting, there is nothing to prevent them from allowing 16 year olds to vote.

I would be curious to see if that passes muster.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

The court expressed “concern” that the Transgender Program at the Cincinnati Children’s Hospital deemed “100% of the patients…who present for care” to be “appropriate candidates for continued gender treatment.” --and used the analogy of "everything's a nail to someone who has a hammer"

That would depend on the circumstances under which patients were referred to the program. If they're only coming there after other doctors have treated them and already confirmed that they are appropriate candidates for treatment, then the clinic confirming that wouldn't be surprising. The number of patients that they've treated is also relevant - 100% of 10 patients is very different from 100% of 1000 patients.

If you agree that the science is still in its infancy, then I think it goes without saying that for this subject, the "qualification gap" between parent and physician isn't as wide as it would be for established conditions. Given that many countries have pumped the brakes on this sort of treatment because doctors have raised concerns, we don't even know which doctors are the correct ones yet.

Not as wide, perhaps, but still wide - it's a medical issue and doctors are medical professionals while parents are not. Furthermore, parents are going to struggle with objectivity on this issue, especially if they have pre-existing prejudices against transgenders.

This is straying off-topic though - again, the point is that the decision is not being made solely by a teenager.

 

[Arcangl86]

I would be curious to see if that passes muster.

The text of the Amendment is "The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age." So it's pretty clear, like most of the rights in the Constitution, that it's a negative right preventing the government from doing something. There doesn't seem to be any prohibition of having a more expansive franchise.

 

[Blade]

So I look here below and read something Michie posted about 12 year old records her suicide... dangers of Social media. The simple fact that this and so many other things happening with our kids are never reported. Its shocking when you start to search and find out this happens every day (Not talking about suicide). A known preacher talked about his 13y I believe and something with inappropriate content for a couple years. Even 15-16 is to young. The fact you can find anything you want in a simple search. I remember this prophecy take with a grain of salt yet here's a tiny part....

"The Third World War will begin in a way no one would have anticipated - and from an unexpected place. A lukewarmness without parallel will take hold of the Christians, a falling away from true, living Christianity. Christians will not be open for penetrating preaching. They will not, like in earlier times, want to hear of sin and grace, law and gospel, repentance and restoration. There will come a substitute instead: prosperity (happiness) Christianity. The important thing will be to have success, to be something; to have material things, things that God never promised us in this way. Churches and prayer houses will be emptier and emptier. Instead of the preaching we have been used to for generations like, to take your cross up and follow Jesus, entertainment, art and culture will invade the churches where there should have been gatherings for repentance and revival. This will increase markedly just before the return of Jesus.

TV will be filled with such horrible violence that it teaches people to murder and destroy each other, and it will be unsafe in our streets. People will copy what they see. There will not be only one ‘station’ on TV, it will be filled with ‘stations.’ (She did not know the word ‘channel’ which we use today. Therefore she called them stations) TV will be just like the radio where we have many ‘stations,’ and it will be filled with violence. People will use it for entertainment. We will see terrible scenes of murder and destruction one of the other, and this will spread in society. Sex scenes will also be shown on the screen, the most intimate things that takes place in a marriage." (I protested and said, we have a paragraph that forbids this kind of thing) There the old woman said: "It will happen, and you will see it. All we have had before will be broken down, and the most indecent things will pass before our eyes."

 

[ThatRobGuy]

I don't see a problem with it. It aligns very well with scientific research that social media is damaging, particularly for girls. I believe even 13 may not even be old enough. Teenagers need much more face time to develop real-world relationship skills in an embodied way.

What do you see as a differentiating factor (with regards to the types of body image issues teens would face) between social media and the rest of the web? Or between social media and TV/Movies/Pop Culture for that matter?

Sure, one could say "if that girl didn't see <insert attractive celeb here>'s Instagram feed, she wouldn't feel so down on her own looks"...but blocking just that one channel doesn't amount to much value added if they're going to see that very same celeb (looking, skinny, dolled up, and airbrushed) when they turn on the TV, go to a movie, or land on the Yahoo home page. The end result of a young person feeling down and saying "why don't I look like that?" is still going to be the same.

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.

I always tend to be of the mindset of "don't throw the baby out with the bathwater and take something else away just to only solve 20% of problem XYZ"

 

[Ana the Ist]

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

Meta, Twitter and other social media platforms currently allow 13-year-olds to join.

www.goodmorningamerica.com

U.S. Surgeon General Dr. Vivek Murthy said he believes 13 is too young for children to be on social media platforms, despite some of the most popular platforms, including Facebook and Instagram, allowing users to be that age.
Murthy told CNN on Sunday that he believes being on social media "does a disservice" to kids early in their teen years.
"I, personally, based on the data I've seen, believe that 13 is too early," Murthy said on "CNN Newsroom." "It's a time where it's really important for us to be thoughtful about what's going into how they think about their own self-worth and their relationships and the skewed and often distorted environment of social media often does a disservice to many of those children."

I have mixed feelings about this.

On one hand, I understand the concerns (like the ones pertaining to young people having unrealistic expectations and body image issues)...but many of those concerns would apply to the internet, in general , as well as several other various forms of entertainment like TV and Movies.

I understand the concerns about young people being exposed to certain ideas and misinformation that could skew some of their thinking, but again, that stuff is on TV and the regular old internet.


Cyber bullying is something that's a little more unique to social media, in that, while the web is full of sites that can spew conspiracy theories, and depict people who have unrealistic looks and bodies, you're not likely to go to a random website or or see a movie where a bunch of people start insulting you, personally, by name.

On the other hand, I think it's a good thing that more and more young people want to become politically engaged, and social media has become the primary vehicle for that. And it's a net positive when people have more ways to communicate with each other.

...and, I think Muthy's assessment is giving some mixed messages here given the administration he's working for. It wasn't too long ago when people were having conversations about advocating for allowing 16 year olds to vote or have an abortion without parental notification/consent. And we're currently having national-level conversations about whether or not to allow adolescents to make major life-altering medical decisions.

If a 15-16 year old is old enough to vote and obtain medical procedures without parental consent, and people are talking about trusting their judgment with regards to certain forms of gender affirmation care, it's kind of tough to sell the idea of "but, yeah, we don't think you're old enough for an instagram account"

I more or less completely agree with the assessment. I don't think social media is an environment for children....perhaps vast portions of the internet as well. It is simply too easy to influence children in ways that damage them long term and the idea of being exposed to near limitless criticism is not a good thing.

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.

As children, they are somewhat insulated from the harsh criticism an adult would receive for their opinions. They're also easily used to spout ridiculous propaganda that their elders use them for. Let's let the kids be kids.

 

[Ana the Ist]

What do you see as a differentiating factor (with regards to the types of body image issues teens would face) between social media and the rest of the web? Or between social media and TV/Movies/Pop Culture for that matter?

Sure, one could say "if that girl didn't see <insert attractive celeb here>'s Instagram feed, she wouldn't feel so down on her own looks"...but blocking just that one channel doesn't amount to much value added if they're going to see that very same celeb (looking, skinny, dolled up, and airbrushed) when they turn on the TV, go to a movie, or land on the Yahoo home page. The end result of a young person feeling down and saying "why don't I look like that?" is still going to be the same.

View attachment 327417


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.

I always tend to be of the mindset of "don't throw the baby out with the bathwater and take something else away just to only solve 20% of problem XYZ"

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"?

 

[FireDragon76]

I more or less completely agree with the assessment. I don't think social media is an environment for children....perhaps vast portions of the internet as well. It is simply too easy to influence children in ways that damage them long term and the idea of being exposed to near limitless criticism is not a good thing.

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.

As children, they are somewhat insulated from the harsh criticism an adult would receive for their opinions. They're also easily used to spout ridiculous propaganda that their elders use them for. Let's let the kids be kids.

Young adullts- teens, have more trouble dealing with criticism and ambiguity in general.

I don't think the images in magazines are comparable to social media. Part of the allures of social media is the promise of personal involvement. It innately appeals to narcissism, which is particularly a problem with young people, when they need to be focus on developing healthy relationships that lead to personal growth and realistic self-assessment.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Young adullts- teens, have more trouble dealing with criticism and ambiguity in general.

I don't think the images in magazines are comparable to social media. Part of the allures of social media is the promise of personal involvement. It innately appeals to narcissism, which is particularly a problem with young people, when they need to be focus on developing healthy relationships that lead to personal growth and realistic self-assessment.

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.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

What do you see as a differentiating factor (with regards to the types of body image issues teens would face) between social media and the rest of the web?

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.

Sure, one could say "if that girl didn't see <insert attractive celeb here>'s Instagram feed, she wouldn't feel so down on her own looks"...but blocking just that one channel doesn't amount to much value added if they're going to see that very same celeb (looking, skinny, dolled up, and airbrushed) when they turn on the TV, go to a movie, or land on the Yahoo home page. The end result of a young person feeling down and saying "why don't I look like that?" is still going to be the same.

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.

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.

Trust me - I understand the benefits. I've been fully present for the evolution of social media. I was in high school when Facebook was first opened up to people without college email addresses, and I've seen it go from an amazing tool for connecting with your friends and family and sharing photos to the cesspool that it is today. While it may have started out with good intentions, it's morphed into something completely different, and there's no real way to put that genie back in the bottle. And the current social media fads (TikTok, Instagram, Snapchat) aren't great communication platforms. Facebook was (and still is, as far as I know) the king of that space, but it's fallen out of favor as the platform that "old people" use. Yeah, you can DM people on all of them, but Snapchat is meant to be temporary, and Instagram is kind of moving in that direction as well with their emphasis on Stories. TikTok (as I understand it - never been on it myself) is primarily about sharing video content with your followers, not communicating directly with people.

If you're looking for genuine connections to people that you can't meet face-to-face, phone calls and video calls are the only real way to do that, and you don't need social media for those. For staying in touch, texts and group texts work just fine. No social media needed.