The Patriot Post® · How Do We Measure the Harm of Social Media?

Many of us remember when Facebook was launched. Popular, yet not as widely known as platforms like SixDegrees and MySpace, it soon normalized the activity of social connection through the Internet and changed the landscape of human interaction forever.

In its early days, social media was used to share photos of our families, divulge important life updates, comment on each other’s random thoughts, and chat about local news or events that were relevant to our circle of acquaintances. Despite its worldwide presence, the space still maintained a small-town community feel, as most of us solely opened our profiles to people we were familiar with in real life — a concept that would be laughable to today’s social app users.

Today, social platforms have become powerful tools at our fingertips. Much like that 1957 pop hit, access to these apps puts the whole world in our hands.

We now have immeasurable reach in our communication, the ability to receive and share global news instantly, and to converse and debate with users all over the world. Conversely, it’s easy to get caught up in a spiral of contention, confusion, and division. And the significant decrease in connecting with people in real life has ignited conversations about the impact of these apps — especially as new generations grow up in a world where access to the entire planet is normal.

Thus far, the primary method of protecting ourselves and our kids from the harmful effects of being bombarded with nonstop comments, opinions, and the influence of others, as well as the darkest material that human souls can put out there, is our own self-governance and household rules.

The struggle to manage time and maintain balance takes intentional effort — and it is becoming critical to find ways to help young adults and teens establish healthy habits. Surgeon General Vivek H. Murthy has appealed to Congress to treat the constant use of social media apps by young people as urgently as we’ve addressed riding safely in cars with seatbelts, and with the same intent behind putting warning labels on tobacco, to make users aware of the proven health risks they are agreeing to. Murthy contends that there are enough studies and measurable factors to link prolonged activity on social apps to the mental health crisis afflicting younger generations.

Of the warning-label proposal, which would require congressional action, Murthy argues that it would “regularly remind parents and adolescents that social media has not been proved safe.” He points to studies that have shown the positive effects of such labels when used on tobacco products, as they can “increase awareness and change behavior.”

However, detractors insist that there is not enough solid evidence to say that social media had a measurable negative impact — at least not enough to warrant congressional action — and they bizarrely use the First Amendment as the basis for their opposition.

As Adam Kovacevich, the CEO of the Chamber of Progress, a policy group dedicated to the tech industry, said, “Putting a warning label on online speech isn’t just scientifically unsound, it’s at odds with the constitutional right to free speech.” With that in mind, perhaps Kovacevich should have a word with Facebook’s “fact-checkers.”

As I’m sure Kovacevich is aware, the goal is not to limit speech but to provide more information about the potential harms associated with the sustained use of these apps, specifically for those who are in the earlier stages of their psychological development.

From the outside, there seems to be nothing to lose and a healthier and more informed future society to gain.

While Murthy had cautioned about a lack of evidence, Kovacevich believes a solid counterargument about additional safety nets for teens is their own personal reassurance, as — sarcasm alert — this age group is known for making informed and balanced decisions about their own health and well-being.

Regulations so far include banning kids under 13 from creating their own accounts and the default 60-minute time limit on TikTok for users under 18, which can be surpassed by entering a passcode to keep scrolling. Today’s tech-savvy youth have been able to work around most restrictions, making such obstructions akin to using a chain-link fence to keep mosquitoes away.

What seems to be missing from the counterposition is the desire to share information about the risks that come with particular choices at the same rate as the more readily accessible statements suggesting that these things are harmless. One might even argue that this is a recurring theme.

We cannot undo the development of and access to social media — it’s a bell we can’t unring. However, parents should have immediate access to relevant data about the pros and cons of the apps their kids use. Only then can they make informed decisions about the limits they set in their own homes and how to help their children navigate a wild online world.