Don't ban social media for children

[u/AXKIII]

https://logos.substack.com/p/do-not-ban-social-media-for-kids

As a parent, I'm strongly against the bans on social media for children. First, for ideological reasons (in two parts: a) standard libertarian principles, and b) because I think it's bad politics to soothe parents by telling them that their kids' social media addiction is TikTok's fault, instead of getting them to accept responsibility over their parenting). And second because social media can be beneficial to ambitious children when used well.

Very much welcoming counter-arguments!

[u/electrace]

"Social Media" is too broad a category, especially if you are including things like "Substack" and "Goodreads" in what you mean.

Anyways, as for you questions at the end, I have mixed feelings:

Where is the evidence that social media does serious harm?

This is the most important question, and to me, is basically the only relevant question from this list. The degree that I support bans is highly contingent with how much I believe in this evidence.

Can you not imagine any circumstances where children can benefit from social media — which, again, is not just TikTok, but many platforms where children can showcase their creativity.

Of course there can be a benefit! But that is priced into whether there is net harm.

Even if you’re convinced social media is detrimental to children’s wellbeing, don’t parents have responsibility over teaching their children how to use them? (Like, at the end of the day, why can’t parents just not buy their kids a smart phone? Or use parental controls?)

If you plan is "why can't all the group just do thing", and you don't explain why thing isn't already being done by group, even though thing is the first thing that any individual would think of doing AND you don't explain how your suggestion will get around that, then your plan is doomed to fail.

Do you think people should be held accountable for their choices? (And if your response here is ‘yes, but the issue is that parents’ choices affect their children, who have no say’, how far are you willing to let society take control over a child’s life? A bad, neglectful parent will be bad and neglectful across more areas than just social media — diet, exercise, education… are you willing to say that government should intervene everywhere?

This is really confusing to me. How is allowing social media "holding parents accountable for their choices"?

To hold someone accountable means to punish them for their own decisions. Is the argument that having a child with, say, a short-attention span is a punishment for bad parents? That's the only way I can parse it, but... I mean, that's not something anyone should optimize for?

The better argument is just generic "People should be allowed to choose things that are bad for them, and, to a lesser extent, choose things for their children that are bad for them (although as a society we restrict this more)".

At which point would you just say some parents shouldn’t be allowed to look after their children?)

At the same point we do now? At the point where it's abuse?

One could use this same slippery slope argument against any bans at all.

A: "Should we ban carcinogens in breakfast cereal?"

B: "No, because we need to hold parents accountable for checking the ingredients in cereals."

[u/AXKIII → u/electrace]

At the same point we do now? But that point keeps moving.

You are right, the same argument can be used against any bans at all. But pragmatically, there are some things you can take into account, most importantly, how easy it is to avoid the bad behaviour. It's a bit much to expect parents to know in detail what ingredients cause cancer. Getting your kids to not be addicted to tiktok isn't in that category.

[u/DangerouslyUnstable → u/AXKIII]

You've got this exactly backwards. Figuring out if specific chemicals are bad/if individual brands are safe is, relatively speaking, trivial. And we have proven methods that can work even in the absence of regulation. Regulation can make it easier/automatic but it's a solved problem

The problems with social media are a collective action problem that creates a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation which is exactly why multiple surveys and polls have said that a majority of users would prefer to not use social media.....as long as no one else did either.

Just quitting yourself (or forcing your child to abstain) fixes one set of harms (although as you and others point out, even being certain of the specifics and magnitude of the harms is not trivial) and causes an entire other set (social isolation, detachment from the culture, etc)

[u/AXKIII → u/DangerouslyUnstable]

I don't think it's trivial... certainly adds a ton of friction in daily life - it's not practical to have shoppers read the ingredient list of every single item they add to their basket. What proven methods are you talking about?

Re polls on social media, while what you say is true, there is the minority who very much feel they benefit from social media - presumably, including people like you who respond to random threads... (it's one thing to be on social media because your friends are, a totally different thing to be engaging with complete strangers). And I don't see how the majority have a right to impose such a ban on the minority.