More and more, prominent people are saying that children spend too much time on social media — and that the exposure is a factor in the mental-health crisis threatening the nation’s teenagers.
Yet, while concern is widespread, public officials are struggling to figure out the best way to tackle this urgent problem.
The latest high-level official to call for government action is Surgeon General Vivek Murthy. Murthy, who has expressed concern about the effect of social media on teens for some time, in June proposed a “warning label” for social media platforms similar to those on tobacco products.
A warning label would require an act of Congress, something that’s unlikely to happen this year in deeply divided Washington. Lawmakers have been promoting bills that would require social media companies to take responsibility for potential harm to children and that would expand federal regulations on online data accessible by children. So far, none of the legislation has passed either the House or Senate.
Murthy’s call was part of the Biden administration’s multiagency task force working on proposals for ways social media companies can better protect children.
The U.S. is lagging behind the United Kingdom, the European Union and several other governments in addressing the online safety of children. The EU’s Digital Services Act, for example, has broad regulations on how social media police their platforms. It also set new limits on sites steering children toward potentially harmful content.
More than a dozen states have acted in the absence of federal leadership, passing laws aimed at limiting the detrimental effect social media use can have on children and teens. There’s considerable evidence that many young people spend several hours a day on social media, and that such exposure can be harmful. Overuse of social media can inhibit children’s social and intellectual development. It can feed feelings of isolation, loneliness, depression and worries over body image. It can fuel thoughts of suicide.
In Virginia, Gov. Glenn Youngkin and lawmakers of both parties discussed several bills during the General Assembly’s recent session, but none advanced. One introduced by Democratic Sen. Schuyler VanValkenburg of Henrico seemed to have the best chance, and passed the Senate unanimously. It didn’t make it out of a House subcommittee, however, after representatives of tech companies, including Meta, the owner of Facebook and Instagram, called the bill too vague.
Van Valkenburg’s bill had a narrow, specific approach: Rather than limit the access of children and teens to social media or control what they could see and follow, it simply said that social media companies could not use “addictive” feeds designed by computer algorithms to hook kids.
Odds are, if the tech companies had not argued that the bill was too vague, they would have come up with other objections.
Reactions to the surgeon general’s call for warning labels are a case in point. A spokesman for the tech trade association NetChoice said that the proposal “oversimplifies the issue” and that “every child is different and struggles with their own challenges.” Of course, a warning label isn’t going to cure every problem for every child, but it could be a step that could help many.
Other objections, some from scientists, were along the lines that research on the role of social media in mental health problems is not complete.
Murthy’s response makes sense: He learned in medical school, he said, that “in an emergency you don’t have the luxury to wait for perfect information.”
Critics also questioned the efficacy of warning labels. No, they won’t solve all the problems, but recent history shows that warning labels on cigarettes, for example, did change attitudes.
Coming up with the right strategy to limit the threats social media pose to children is an urgent need. Federal action would spare the states from having to act independently, but to become effective law, restrictions must be specific and targeted.
Getting this right isn’t going to be easy, but it will be worth the effort.
