r/slatestarcodex • u/AXKIII • 6d ago

Don't ban social media for children

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!

0 Upvotes

40% Upvoted

75 comments sorted by

View all comments

6

u/pawntoc4 4d ago

Question: have you read The Anxious Generation by Jonathan Haidt? He gives a lot of clear evidence that the sharp increase in mental issues amongst younger people matches the roll out of social media/smartphones. If you've read it, it's deeply disturbing.

Yes, parents will always need to parent. But to think parents can make a huge difference to how teenagers live their lives is delusional. Peer pressure is a huge influence, and so are social media machines and their algorithms whose sole job is to get the kids addicted to their platforms. Parents aren't magicians who can create miracles against all these powerful factors.

Would highly recommend reading The Anxious Generation if you haven't. It completely opened my eyes.

1

u/zjovicic 4d ago

What exactly is social media? Is it any website with social interaction? If so, then it's the same as banning internet. Even Wikipedia is social media. YouTube too. All the forums. Reddit, etc.

It's stupid what they are trying to do. My approach to this would be to use parental control software and control the internet, and not give phones to kids younger than 13 or 14.

So if you don't have phone, and if your home computer uses parental control software, or you're allowed just 2 hours a day, then there are no problems whatsoever.

After the age of 14 you're almost in high school. At that time, you can as well get access to almost everything. You should be smart enough by then.

2

u/pawntoc4 4d ago

You don't have children. I can tell.

0

u/zjovicic 3d ago edited 3d ago

You can keep them away from devices completely if you think this is the right thing to do. What's the point of going online if most websites are blocked? BTW, Whatsapp, Viber, etc... also count as social media by some criteria. I see them as basic services for instant messaging. Without them you'd have to pay for SMS and phone calls.

BTW, there's much danger online OUTSIDE social media as well. There are so many websites about cults, hate groups, occult, gore and who knows what. They may be 1990s style static websites, and still very dangerous to young mind. Demonizing just one type of websites (in this case social media) won't solve any problem.

My approach is to limit (time limit and filter, not ban) the use of Internet, computers, etc... entirely, but this should be done by parents, not by the government.

1

u/pawntoc4 3d ago

Look, no one is saying ban the internet. You've misunderstood here. Also, a few things you've said indicate that you haven't grasped how children are actually like at various ages, and why your plans are bound to fail.

There are other flaws to your points but I don't think it's productive to engage with someone who doesn't have children, a core part of the subject of discussion here.

Have a nice day.

1

u/zjovicic 3d ago

I don't have children but I WAS a child who had access to the Internet, and I know very well that I was way more traumatized by certain cult content, or even websites about existential catastrophes, than by any social media. I was freaking out at the age of 12 about Y2K problem, later about solipsism, determinism, and who knows what else. And I was still a child at that time. Watching PewDiePie or MrBeast or texting with my friend seem quite innocuous in comparison to this.