Surgeon General says 13 is ‘too early’ to join social media

https://www.cnn.com/2023/01/29/health/surgeon-general-social-media/index.html

by Bender • 3 years ago

263 228 3 years ago

uptownfunk• 3 years ago

Growing up in early 90s we had a computer lab where we would go as part of kindergarten and first grade to play logo draw and Oregon trail. That feels way different to the type of tech exposure kids are getting these days with social media.

There is something fundamentally different about making things “social” than just doing something harmless offline, like playing a game with the family, writing a story, using MS paint, math blaster.

When things became social, it’s like we were all given sledgehammers and told to go smash the candy store and raid it for whatever we wanted.

Maybe I’m being nostalgic for the early / mid 90s when we didn’t have these devices glued to us and little red notification icons hijacking our dopaminergic circuitry.

reeckoh2• 3 years ago

+1 to offline computer labs. Our primary school had one in the '90s, but they only let us in for an hour or two each week.

The teachers didn't know how to use the computers, and the parents mostly felt that it was a waste of time which would rot our child brains. Still, the school had paid a bunch of money for it as part of an initiative to get rid of the library's card catalog system, so it had to be used.

The teachers tried to convince everyone to play math and typing games, but most kids played with a sort of photoshop-lite program, stuck magnets onto the CRT screens, or played Oregon Trail.

It wasn't an efficient process, but just about everybody in our district was a proficient typist by middle school. When I got to college, I was surprised by how many people typed on their laptops like they type on their phones, with rapid index finger pecks.

MattDemers• 3 years ago

We figured out pretty quick how to use Windows' internal network messenger, and that was pretty cool (in terms of being able to chat with peers without the teachers knowing).

It still blows my mind that kids are using Chromebooks and Ipads daily on an elementary level.

the_only_law2• 3 years ago

, I was surprised by how many people typed on their laptops like they type on their phones, with rapid index finger pecks.

What kind of people do you hang around. I don’t know anyone who commonly uses their index fingers to type on their phone. It’s mostly thumbs.

gsatic• 3 years ago

Fundamental difference is there is click/like/upvote/view/follower count next to everything. These counts never existed on the old Internet. Kids were never getting judged with the whole planet scoring their thoughts like today. And people werent programmed to think collecting Likes and Followers is the point of the whole story.

amadeuspagel2• 3 years ago

Thankfully, there's still 4chan. At least one place to talk without a click/like/upvote/view/follower count.

dragonwriter2• 3 years ago

Fundamental difference is there is click/like/upvote/view/follower count next to everything. These counts never existed on the old Internet.

Public view counts on individual pages were extremely common on the “old internet”, if by that you mean the WWW pre the rise of the terms “social media” and “social network”.

api• 3 years ago

The problem with social media isn’t the social part. It’s the media part.

Media comes from the root of mediate. Social media is a huge system sitting between people and mediating their communication. The main goal function for most of it is to maximize engagement, which means amplifying and prioritizing the most toxic interactions.

It’s like having someone sitting between you and your friends steering the conversation toward whatever is the most negative, hateful, or ridiculous.

unglaublich• 3 years ago

Growing up in 00s, we had internet porn, scams and gambling _everywhere_... still we turned out fine.

jgavris• 3 years ago

Oh how I miss the computer labs with Kidpix, Oregon trail, Mavis Beacon, and maybe later Marathon LAN parties (when the instructor left the room for an hour)...

baremetal• 3 years ago

In middle school we had quake 1 too. But only during recess or before school.

girvo• 3 years ago

math blaster

https://www-old--games-ru.translate.goog/game/11519.html?_x_...

This is the game that taught me maths when I was 4-5 years old, and part of why I was excellent at maths for the rest of my schooling. Gosh it was fun!

That plus exploring Encarta 95 for hours on end.

But I also sunk a lot of time into SimCity 2000 and MechWarrior 2, to be fair.

bigger_cheese2• 3 years ago

I grew up in the mid to late 90's, so probably about 5 years later than you.

My first real exposure to the internet was through my year 7 English class. My English teacher was I guess you'd call an early adopter he was one of those people convinced technology was going to be revolutionary he somehow signed our class up to be a part of an email pen pal program with a school in Japan. One lesson a week we would go to the school library (where there was a computer with dial up internet) we would tell the teacher what we wanted to say and he would type 2 or 3 sentences from each student in our class and then send it using a program called "Eudora" (pretty sure we were using the teacher's personal address) and maybe a week later the teacher would show up to class with a stack of printouts. He would hand each of us the printout from our respective pen pal full of broken English. We did this for maybe a semester.

That was my first exposure to online "social" use of computers. A few years Later people started to get internet at home ICQ (a chat program became pretty popular) this was around the time of Napster so there was a lot of downloading songs sharing them with people on ICQ etc. A little after that Online gaming was starting to be possible, I remember playing Quake, Starcraft and Diablo 2 with my friends online. I think around year 11/12 Counterstrike came out, it was a mod for the game Half Life and was very popular. The latency was normally pretty bad but it slowly got better.

In the early days bandwidth was so limited it really restricted what kinds of social activities you could do on line.

f0e4c2f7• 3 years ago

Incidentally 31 may also still be too young.

coding123• 3 years ago

43 soon, and I still don't think it's a good idea.

cmsonger• 3 years ago

In my case "50s is 'too early to join social media'". So right there with you. :) (Though to be honest, joined back in the 00's then left in the early 2010s.)

LarryMullins• 3 years ago

What's the best age to get addicted to heroin?

rpmw• 3 years ago

He also claimed that water is indeed wet.

zahma• 3 years ago

Not only wet but soaked with forever chemicals and hormones. Where to begin to save the children?

karaterobot• 3 years ago

Are parents going to deny their kids access to social media? Among the parents I know, none of them do this even if they admit it's probably bad for their kids. The social pressure from the kids' peers is the number one reason they give: their kids will be left out, and social alienation is viewed as worse than social media. Perhaps a coordinated effort would make a difference, I don't know. I'm skeptical.

Despite saying lawmakers are "paying attention", there's no talk of regulation in this article, so presumably a voluntary effort on the part of parents is the only actionable plan they are ready to discuss. As the article notes, social products are not de facto designed to keep kids out, and have not done a good job of it so far, so I am also skeptical they will improve in the future without any legal pressure.

irrational8• 3 years ago

I think so. We don’t buy our kids smartphones. We tell them that they can have one when they can buy it themselves. That tends to happen around 16-17. At home we block social media at the router level. They have Chromebooks from school, but social media is blocked on those by the school district. We’ve never had any of the kids complain about social alienation.

yumraj5• 3 years ago

Ditto. My old got cellphone in 9th grade, and all usual ones are blocked via pihole at home.

Now in 12th, he does use Discord to communicate with a limited set of friends. But that’s it.

I’ve said it before, the difference is that we don’t use any of the social media ourselves, so kids are OK. If parents use them but ask kids to refrain, obviously it’s not going to work.

jcelerier• 3 years ago

they are going to be very inadapted when they end up in college or later. this is also restricting them from career opportunities, e.g. community & socials management etc. I know people who flat-out say that they wouldn't trust someone with no social media presence.

TideAd• 3 years ago

And if they did complain, what then?

Are you worried about the social lives they might be missing out on? About the friendships they might have had if they had a phone with Snapchat on it? A lot of social life for kids happens online.

sitkack• 3 years ago

You aren't blocking HN. Are you also blocking Reddit?

digitallyfree2• 3 years ago

I'm curious how your kids collaborate with other students for schoolwork if social media is disallowed. When I was in elementary and high school I regularly used MSN/Facebook/etc. for group projects and study sessions, and from what I know today's students mostly use Discord. Having a student's Facebook group for the class/school was also very common and people would discuss assignments and events. Obviously the kids do fool around on those services but they also use it for legitimate purposes like how corps today use MS Teams.

If a student did not have access to those services I would not want to work with them on say a group assignment because it would be very difficult to keep things organized. I would not want to go out of my way to go to their house/make phone calls to keep them in the loop.

interroboink• 3 years ago

I am forever grateful that my parents raised me with no TV in the house.

It's true, we were sometimes out-of-the-loop with regards to pop culture, which is a somewhat isolating factor. I imagine it could be even more so with social media, since it's not just common discussion material but the actual means of communication.

From time to time, I'll look at TV these days (in a hotel, or so), and it's ... so off-putting. All the ads screaming at you, the pacing of things. I'm sure plenty of people don't even know another reality, but I'm so glad that I do.

I don't see it changing without a grassroots upwelling on a cultural level, where people want it to change. Maybe as quality of those experiences continues to degrade there will be an increased desire for it. A person can hope. Things generally need to get worse before they get better, it seems.

watwut3• 3 years ago

I will not deny it to them. Plus, it was their primary communication with peers during lockdowns, I am not going to put toothpaste back to tube. Social media are part of current world whether I like it or not. Teens are at the stage where you need to be releasing them gradually and they should become independent, get jobs or go to college soon.

I find the impulse to deny it all fascinating in combination with outrages over pre-teens and tees walking themselves or using public transport, expectation of without constant supervision till age of 18 and so on. There is knee jerk streak of "control everything as tightly as possible". Except that, they should be growing independent. And also fascinating contrast against how toxic online communities gets treated - I have yet to see the call to prevent boys from playing online games as strategy despite some of those peer groups being fairly toxic both in ideology and behavior.

amadeuspagel2• 3 years ago

the skewed and often distorted environment of social media

Where is the unskewed and undistorted social environment that is implicit here?

klyrs• 3 years ago

Talking to peers in the cafeteria or playground is not subject to a corporation boosting attention to the kids that it finds most profitable.

More generally, taking your "no true scotsman" approach to kids safety would suggest that it's fine to let kids play in a lead-dust sandpit because you can't eliminate 100% of environmental lead.

Tade04• 3 years ago

Gone with the advent of the internet. We're just still getting used to this new reality after over 20 years.

Tade04• 3 years ago

“If parents can band together and say you know, as a group, we’re not going to allow our kids to use social media until 16 or 17 or 18 or whatever age they choose, that’s a much more effective strategy in making sure your kids don’t get exposed to harm early,"

I'm surprised by this statement considering he's a parent.

You can't really prevent a teenager from doing something if they set their mind on it. All we can really do is educate.

My take is that every social media outlet starts a death spiral once its first generation of users starts being parents of teenagers.

layer83• 3 years ago

You can't really prevent a teenager from doing something if they set their mind on it. All we can really do is educate.

So also give them access to tobacco and booze?

m4tthumphrey• 3 years ago

More like educate them about the issues of tobacco and booze.

ChuckNorris89• 3 years ago

So also give them access to tobacco and booze?

Depends where you live, but in some EU countries, teens start drinking and smoking and already give up on cigs and beer before American teens even start.

It's pretty common to see 14 year olds smoking and drinking beer outside in public despite these being officially allowed when you're 18.

Teens will always try to do what adults tell them is forbidden and bad for them, because doing forbidden things is enticing and makes you look cool and rebellious.

woodruffw2• 3 years ago

Maybe not "give them access," but I think we tend to underestimate adolescents' abilities to select out of behavior. From personal experience: I was able to access alcohol at a pretty early age, and thus avoided a lot of the "typical" American young adult experience with it (not drinking until college, at which point you black out at your first party.)

Tobacco is a step further in terms of addictive potential, but I think the US could generally learn from Europe's approach to adolescent drinking.

twblalock• 3 years ago

Outside of rare circumstances they already have access.

Barrin922• 3 years ago

Yes, why not? The drinking age is 16 where I grew up and my parents said, if you want to smoke or drink, don't hide it, and if you ever want to experiment with anything do it here in the home where people you can trust are around. And that's what I did, never lied to my parents once. The first time I smoked pot they knew about it, I never got blackout drunk anywhere, never did any hard stuff or used anything irresponsibly, still don't.

What I do vividly remember is having US exchange students in uni age 21+ who binge drank themselves into oblivion everywhere, catching up on everything at once without anyone around.

yazzku• 3 years ago

I think the point is that if the nearby group of parents all agree on it, the kids don't feel as much social pressure to be on the platform.

thomastjeffery3• 3 years ago

My experience is that it's much more effective to advocate for the alternative activities that would be done instead of using social media.

I also think focusing all our attention to the broadest instance ("social media" as a whole) is just as lazy as focusing on the broadest audience ("teenagers" as a whole).

One of the most frustrating social behaviors teenagers experience from adults is "infantilization": when an adult refuses to accommodate or even recognize a teenager's own autonomy, discipline, and maturation; instead placing them at the same social level as an infant. Teenagers are not babies, and they know it. They are not likely be fully mature, and they are definitely not fully immature.

To broadly declare that teenagers are endangered by social media is no more helpful than broadly declaring children are endangered by water. In either context, simple avoidance is not a practical solution, nor is it intrinsically desirable.

noobermin5• 3 years ago

In America, there is a broad infantilization push that started from the 90s till now. I remember not being able to walk outside of my neighborhood, while my fiance who is not american walked to school as a preteen. While social media is toxic for teens and adults really, so there is clearly some value in the observation somewhere, this is stemming from the infantalizing culture of America today.

blitz_skull• 3 years ago

“You can’t really prevent a teenager from doing something if they set their mind on it.”

While true about any human, this mindset is wrong when the conclusion is “I won’t even try to change the problem.”

Education is the wrong answer because education only delivers information. What we need is leadership and wisdom in application.

Properly-applied leadership CAN prevent teenagers from engaging in self-destructive behaviors. Education is not the answer, it is half of the strategy, but perfect education by itself will not solve this issue or any other public health crisis facing our youth.

noobermin5• 3 years ago

What is "leadership and wisdom in application?" That's a bit vague.

Aeolun4• 3 years ago

So the best way to get teenagers to stop is to join them?

za3faran2• 3 years ago

You can't really prevent a teenager from doing something if they set their mind on it.

By the time they hit their teenage years, it's basically too late. You have to start earlier instilling authority and respect and trust in their parents. Not a popular opinion here, but religion plays a role in guidance as well.

darthrupert• 3 years ago

We prohibit children from drinking alcohol and smoking tobacco, and while it doesn't work perfectly, it sure has made them use these substances less. I'm a bit disappointed how timid his opinion is. He should be calling for laws against children's device use instead of calling for parents to do it.

I don't think parents will ever do it, not in such quantity that it would matter. Also, if it's primarily the parents' responsibility to do this, it will be the more well-off, more educated and more intelligent parents who will have the resources to do this. The children who need the most help with this problem will again be left to deal with it themselves.

ergonaught3• 3 years ago

We occasionally "grounded" our teenaged daughters from their devices for various reasons. This primarily cut them off from social media. After a week away from it, even they acknowledged how much healthier and happier they were (mentally/emotionally). A few days after device usage resumed, those things tanked. We pointed it out a few times. They saw it, too, even brought it up themselves. But of course they continued using the stuff. It reminds me of the vast hordes of young people vaping who wouldn't be caught dead hitting a cigarette, apparently aware that this is idiotic but doing it anyway.

It's fun times to be a human.

lordnacho2• 3 years ago

Social media is basically internet era alcohol. Except alcohol has been around for a heck of a long time and the internet has been a culturally important thing for maybe a quarter century.

Just like in previous times when we discovered alcohol, various cultures also found ways over time to deal with the fallout. Some cultures don't do so well with it.

The same happened with various other chemicals like opium, tobacco, and crack, which all have had societal reactions over time. The contraceptive pill is another one, and I'd argue so are processed foods.

Tempest1981• 3 years ago

But more insidious

the_only_law2• 3 years ago

Social media is basically internet era alcohol

God I wish, I’d probably use it more if it had any similar benefits as alcohol.

superfrank2• 3 years ago

Social media is basically internet era alcohol.

I've always used sugar and high fructose corn syrup as my analogy.

In the early days of the internet we didn't have what we now call social media, but we had things like blogs and message boards that allowed for some connection with other people. Those things had some of the elements that make modern social media toxic, but they were mixed in with other good things and we consumed them much slower.

Over the past few decades, we've slowly refined social media to what it is today. In an attempt to retain customers we've boiled it down to its most addictive and unhealthy parts and pushed customers to consume more of that quicker than ever before.

devwastaken2• 3 years ago

Social media for teens are effectively casinos. They're designed to do that.

Those who vape would also smoke, vaping is far healthier to do, it's cheaper, and it tastes better. You also can't government regulate liquid like you can cigarettes.

agentwiggles2• 3 years ago

you can't government regulate liquid

You certainly can, my city just passed a ban of all flavored tobacco products which will include vaping.

I disagree with the ban, but that's beside the point here.

I'm actually curious to see how things play out. The first thing that occurred to me was that vape shops might start selling unflavored liquid and also sell flavoring which you would have to mix in yourself. Not sure that would be passable under the legal regime or not.

Interestingly, statehouse Republicans attempted to pass a law which would have negated my city's ban. This was vetoed by the state governor though.

rolenthedeep• 3 years ago

You also can't government regulate liquid like you can cigarettes.

Alcohol

AussieWog93• 3 years ago

I've noticed that effect for so many things that have become cultural norms, from the food we eat to how we spend time with our friends.

Seems really sad that we're forced to choose between our own wellbeing and participating in broader culture.

Have to point out, though, it seems the one place where everything isn't toxic seems to be (certain forms of) orgnanised religion.

nostrademons• 3 years ago

Hmm? To me organized religion seems to be the most toxic of all - megachurches and Internet-only pastors are the ones whipping up their followers into believing people that are not like them are existential threats worthy of being killed. The healthier forms of religion are the ones that explicitly un-organized: Unitarian Universalists, Quakers, your local community church that serves as a gathering place for like-minded folks but isn't interested in imposing their beliefs on others.

Maybe the lesson there is that organization is the evil, given that it seems to pop up in so many contexts (megacorps < small businesses, megachurches < community organizations, public schooling < small private/parochial/charter schools, big government < grassroots organizations). Would make sense, since an organization, by definition, is about subsuming what individually makes you happy so you can be a part of something bigger. The bigger the organization grows, the less it can fit the authentic selves of the people who support it.

memling• 3 years ago

Have to point out, though, it seems the one place where everything isn't toxic seems to be (certain forms of) orgnanised religion.

Perhaps what we are seeing is a generalization of religion in which certain aspects of social concern have effectively become religious exercise. This might be a challenging thesis to sustain, but where parallels can be found it might give some broader insight into the present moment.

GoblinSlayer2• 3 years ago

You can participate in broader culture once per month, that should be enough. Anyway most people don't participate but consume.

Wolfbeta• 3 years ago

Same as it ever was.

"One wants to do everything and one can do nothing, one is always thinking that from to-morrow one will begin a new life, that from to-morrow one will set to work as one ought, that from to-morrow one will put oneself on a diet; but not a bit of it, on the evening of that very day one will over-eat oneself, so that one can only blink one’s eyes and can’t say a word—yes really; and it’s always like that.” -- "Hlobuev", Gogol, N. Dead Souls (1854)

d_sem• 3 years ago

It's quite recent to have multi-billion dollar tech companies develop algorithms that are this affective of hijacking attention.

voldacar• 3 years ago

Vaping doesn't deposit nitrosamines, polycyclic hydrocarbons and tar in your lungs though? I don't see how it warrants comparison

manmal• 3 years ago

Nicotine itself incurs DNA damage and is suspected to be a carcinogen.

ergonaught3• 3 years ago

The "At least I'm not shooting heroin into my eyeballs" argument doesn't float.

Karellen• 3 years ago

ObSMBC

https://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/addicted

nimajneb2• 3 years ago

This is my fear with my daughter, even though I'm addicted to electronics as well. I've trying to decrease my usage, but it's hard.

Aeolun4• 3 years ago

I know papa is constantly looking at his phone, but I believe it’s bad for you, so I don’t want you to do it.

Becoming the hypocrite is never fun, but at least I understand my parents now.

User23• 3 years ago

Addictions are insidious. I recall that brief era when Internet addiction was a concern. Then virtually everyone got addicted so it's just normal.

treeman79• 3 years ago

That was my exact experience with a teenage daughter. She was depressed and rude with social media. She’s get it taken away for a month. Happy and energetic. Complete reversal in a couple days after getting it back. Repeat for several years.

Aeolun4• 3 years ago

This is no different from me and my mobile phone usage. It directly correlates with the quality of my sleep, and I know I should sleep more, but it’s just too hard to give up.

za3faran2• 3 years ago

I recall hearing a lecture from Dr Leonard Sax where during part of it he discussed the dangers of social media on teens. He also mentioned that girls were especially disproportionately affected than boys.

But of course they continued using the stuff

Sorry to be blunt, but why don't you do your duty as a parent and continue the prohibition of those devices except for necessary things?

pxoe• 3 years ago

why doesn't it really work and why do people come back and do it anyway? It's because cutting off is the most basic non-solution, that doesn't actually try to tackle the problem or fix anything. (Perhaps less so for 'managing use and having time limits', but definitely that for just 'cutting completely off, down to zero' approaches.) In a digital and online world, cutting people off is inhibiting people's communication. It's just plainly unfair. People need the ability to communicate, and venues to socialize in, at any age. And, it is not given that just because someone's 'technically of adult age', that they're gonna have some kind of understanding about digital spaces and how social life can play out within them. Just being in a space, or even having some experience within it, isn't necessarily gonna give explanations, answers and solutions. It is just a thing that's worth explaining and giving guidance on, whomever they may be.

Perhaps one useful and applicable distinction that can be made, is between 'interpersonal communication' (in apps like messengers, directly talking to people you know) and 'posting something on a platform' (in apps that are more like "social media", where posts are available to a broader public). Another distinction could be made for 'private platforms/spaces' (like discord) or 'limited/like-minded/focused spaces' (that aren't just the most general platforms, but something bit more specialized for some kind of content or audience), and the bigger platforms/spaces (that are basically just 'you're out there with everyone'. it also could be pointed out that 'having a semi-private group on a big platform might not be too bad - but that it might be still out there and accessible, so there's things to mind'. or, hell, explain what comes with posting on a big platform and what precautions should one take). Explaining the differences and outlining where and what someone would be doing, could help, in a practical way that won't be just 'you can't do anything now'.

Cutting off messaging isn't something that should be done, in my opinion - it's too drastic. it's basically saying, 'don't talk to people/you don't get to talk to people', and those people are probably gonna be the most familiar/important people to them. Cutting off social media, could be done, but it's really worth talking through and explaining the difference between 'publishing something for the whole internet and hanging out in that broad of a space' or 'posting something for your friends group to see, and hanging in a private, familiar space' (and perhaps, enticing them to grow and enrich their own social circle and seek something there, not just from random people on big platforms). At the end of the day though, cutting off and prohibiting something can be just circumvented, as people might just do something anyway, and if they don't have the 'why' explained to them, it might be even easier to ignore the limits without much concern. With guidance, that stands on its own, maybe it could be less so.

LatteLazy• 3 years ago

Be careful my friends: it would be terrible for us embrace medical advice that agrees with our prejudices but ignore similar advice on subjects we don't like like sex ed and sleep and stress and bullying...

klabb3• 3 years ago

We need more granular language to talk about these issues. Anyone with moderate proficiency in online communities know that there are major differences between eg instagram and a private discord chat to play Minecraft with your friends.

Perhaps we should look at online media as games, with different rules and incentives, and find out which rules are good for us and which ones aren’t.

Public people oriented social media (instagram & Twitter being canonical examples) clearly stand out to me as the most problematic. Worse, the content promotion algorithms are opaque and not customizable, which makes it very difficult to research their influence. Upstream, >99% of these companies’ revenue come from advertisers, it’s likely that they constitute the largest stakeholder in our children’s online experiences (and our own, of course).

thomastjeffery3• 3 years ago

I agree that looking at "social media" in the context of game theory would be incredibly useful.

Talking about "social media" as if it is one cohesive thing is lazy and unhelpful. The same goes for "teenagers".

bdw5204• 3 years ago

I think the "you must claim to be at least 13 to be able to participate in an online discussion site" law makes sense as it functions as an IQ test of sorts to keep under-13s who are not ready to be on the internet off the internet. But I'm not in favor of increasing the age as I think its reasonable for teens to be able to openly admit that they're teens.

The problem with most of the social media platforms is their hostility to anonymity. A teen with a Twitter account or a Reddit account should absolutely be an anon so that their posts while they're still figuring life out aren't tied to their real name and it would be good if social media companies and search engines would help people destroy the evidence of any embarrassing stuff they posted under their real identity as a teen for the same reason that we as a society typically expunge the criminal records of teenagers who commit crimes.

But social media companies have been making it harder and harder to be anonymous. For example, Twitter started locking new accounts and forcing them to provide a phone number a few years ago ostensibly as an "anti-bot" measure. This is actively harmful and should be discontinued. Likewise, Google needs to allow users who wish to remain anonymous to turn off all of their account security measures other than a password. Security measures such as tying accounts to phones are helpful for adults who have their identity and their finances tied to these accounts but it makes these services unsafe for minors as it allows the platform to know the identities of their underage users which is a possible security risk.

Minors should also be educated in terms of basic measures to protect their anonymous accounts from deanonymization attacks and on the dangers of meeting their "internet friends" in real life. All of this used to be standard advice for "heavily online" youth in the 90s and 00s. I don't see any reason why it shouldn't be in the 20s other than the preference of some social media outlets that users use their real identity for ad targeting purposes and the insistence of certain powerful people who can't handle criticism that anonymity is bad because they get criticized by anons who otherwise wouldn't feel safe challenging them (i.e. online anonymity is also good because it allows adults who'd otherwise feel unsafe speaking truth to power to feel safe enough to do so).

BlueTemplar4• 3 years ago

Seems like Twitch has been pushing lately for some channels to only allow chat if the typist gives Twitch their phone number ?

Thankfully, there's still 4chan ! (/s ... or is it ?)

olliej• 3 years ago

Based on my dad 60ish is also not a good age

thenerdhead2• 3 years ago

Isn't the surgeon general in a position where they can amplify the best scientific information on social media / technology addiction and help parents / kids understand the risk of engaging?

Perhaps that type of voice could help create the next D.A.R.E. program, but for this issue given the efficacy of prevention programs.

superfrank2• 3 years ago

I hear what you're saying and agree, but D.A.R.E. probably isn't the best example since a lot of studies have found that it was ineffective in preventing drug use.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1448384/

thenerdhead2• 3 years ago

Sure that's fair. I don't know the modern equivalent. I guess it is called "Keepin' it REAL". Which is what I was thinking in terms of efficacy from previous literature by the surgeon general.

https://cdc.thehcn.net/promisepractice/index/view?pid=4186 https://real-prevention.com/keepin-it-real/

I mostly found this guidance in here:

https://addiction.surgeongeneral.gov/sites/default/files/sur...

Well-supported scientific evidence demonstrates that a variety of prevention programs and alcohol policies that address these predictors prevent substance initiation, harmful use, and substance use related problems, and many have been found to be cost-effective. These programs and policies are effective at different stages of the lifespan, from infancy to adulthood, suggesting that it is never too early and never too late to prevent substance misuse and related problems

ergocoder• 3 years ago

The last surgeon general also said masks didn't reduce covid spread. He reversed his words a month later. Prop to him for reversing his words.

But still. Maybe we should wait until more research is out.

rdl• 3 years ago

I don't have children, but I think if I did, I'd ease them into social media by paying them run a social media profile for a cat -- from the perspective of the cat, with no humans or PII visible, solely the cat. This would accomplish a few goals: familiarity with the tools, exposure to the annoyances of the process in a relatively safe environment, and probably dislike of the whole thing due to it being "a job" before it's a hobby or personal interest.

joshuaheard• 3 years ago

An as empty-nester who gave their child a phone at 10 years old, I would say make the minimum age for social media 16, just like driving. We gave our child a phone to give her a competitive technology edge and to keep track of her movements for safety. However, social media is like crack cocaine for kids. We found out when we would take her phone away as punishment, and she became a monster. She constantly had FOMO. It's also nearly impossible to limit their screen time while in the possession of the phone. There should definitely be some sort of age restriction, whatever it is.

IshKebab• 3 years ago

Have you tried that with adults though?

watwut3• 3 years ago

To be fair, adults are isolating themselves. Loneliness epidemic and all, adults dont have all that many relationships that would matter to them that exist outside of institutions they are in - work.

Adults dont use social media to keep communication with friends - they dont have friends. Adults use social medias as newspaper.

mixmastamyk3• 3 years ago

It's also nearly impossible to limit their screen time while in the possession of the phone

Was this a few years ago before Screen Time on iOS? Or was Android? We have a very locked down ipod touch and it works well most of the time.

gardenhedge2• 3 years ago

The same thing happens when you take a playstation away from a gamer kid

robryan• 3 years ago

Maybe you can restrict social media in terms of connecting to everyone, but I don't think you can or should stop 13 year olds from being able to talk to their friends with the various group messangers.

charlieyu1• 3 years ago

My generation grew up with everyone having ICQ accounts at 12-13.

mixmastamyk3• 3 years ago

Uh oh! I had ICQ but it was at a time I didn't know a single other "normal" person on the internet besides colleagues at aerospace jobs. Late 90s? Probably folks at universities too.

Significant number of pre-teens? Unlikely. Also ICQ didn't use dark addictive patterns to my memory, it was just fun.

granshaw2• 3 years ago

11 here

anthonyskipper• 3 years ago

Same could be said about religion. Probably more true in that case.

thomastjeffery3• 3 years ago

Every part of this recommendation is too broad.

"teenagers aged 13 to 16-18" is way too broad a category. What developmental characteristics are shared among that entire group? Which of those characteristics make an individual "too vulnerable" to benefit "safely" from "social media"? Are those traits really unique to children, and not adults? Is the use of "social media" itself entirely separate from learning how to "safely" interact with "social media" later?

The same goes for "social media" itself. Are we talking about public forums, direct messaging, group chats, content creation, media consumption, or something else? What moderation techniques and goals are involved? What subjects do the spaces in question focus on? If we can't get specific here, our only choice is to ban everything from 4chan, to Tinder, to Snapchat, to SMS, to IRC, to landlines, to physical letters, all the way down to chatting unsupervised in a public park!

And what is the "risk" posed? That a child will feel disproportionately leveraged judgement from their peers, and fall into depression? That a child will view traumatic content and get PTSD? That a child will start an unhealthy or dangerous relationship with an adult? That a child will build political or religious beliefs that contradict their parents' ideology? That a child will build an addictive relationship to the media itself, and avoid healthier activity? That a child will learn how to use technical computing skills to circumvent parental, school, or government censorship? Every one of these concerns is considered valid by a significant group of adults, and considered invalid by another.

We all know that leaving people alone to leverage something as powerful as computer networks is dangerous. That leverage goes both ways, and the metaphorical fulcrum is most often positioned nearest to the individual user, and farthest from the network itself. Even though this subject is vitality important, we must recognize that the only way to interact with it at all is through context.

The more context we have, the more control we have over the leverage that these tools provide, and the better equipped we become to maximize safety and utility.

bjt2n3904• 3 years ago

I fully agree.

But should the surgeon general also make comments about how code reviews need to be empathetic? I mean. If the surgeon general is gonna make statements about what is "healthy" for other social issues, where does he stop?

slavboj• 3 years ago

Given how the office of the surgeon general has been so obviously politicized and their recommendations based on political considerations, I am reluctant to take their advice in and of itself as evidence of anything health related. It's likelier based on the administration's desire to put pressure on their political opponents at social media companies than any actual health considerations.

LanceH• 3 years ago

I read this as an excuse to take further control of the internet and ignore the 1st amendment.

xlii• 3 years ago

This is something that’s on my mind lately.

My kids nag me constantly for Facebook/WhatsApp/TikTok etc. Main argument is that peers are using those media and they feel excluded.

The thing is that all parties involved is way below required 13yo. I do have arguments which are heard but it is not like reality stops being it especially when there is no alternative outside of school-owned Teams account that has most social activities disabled.

It feels like there’s no win in this fight, except for maybe suing FB for not checking carefully enough and allowing young minors to use their platform.

wslh• 3 years ago

Physical activity, physical activity, and physical activity. It does not need to be a sport.

charcircuit• 3 years ago

At that point why don't we ban teenagers from having friends in general? Just lock them in a room alone with no other human contact.

If connecting with people via the internet is not allowed neither should connecting with people via any other medium.

hestefisk2• 3 years ago

Any tips from parents of pre teens / teenagers on how to manage this? My son is turning 11 soon and his peers already have their own mobile phones, YouTube accounts etc. I want to protect him and only have this when he is old enough. I expect the next few years to be challenging times :(

cloudking• 3 years ago

You can give them phones without giving them full permissions to any app/website. Apple and Google have pretty good parental controls, where you can decide which apps/websites are allowed, screen time for specific apps etc.

hestefisk2• 3 years ago

I know, but peer pressure I expect will persist. My youngest son is already frustrated he can’t watch YouTube because all his friends can, and he’s 7. I guess it’s more about tips on how to talk to them about it.

rsyring• 3 years ago

We simply said "no" to social media and also led by example by not using social media[1]. Also talked about social media perils occasionally and shared articles from HN regarding.

1: I don't consider HN social media for the purpose of this discussion. I do use Facebook very occasionally for marketplace and groups that only exist in FB (utility only).

AbrahamParangi• 3 years ago

Give him an absolutely crap phone (maybe like a Light Phone II). If he wants a better one he can get a job and buy it himself, which will take some amount of time and at minimum he'll learn something.

ck2• 3 years ago

Good luck with that even if true.

All you parents posting here how your kids are regulated, ha no there is always a friend with a workaround, you have no idea what they are doing elsewhere.

I remember when small cellphone came out (not smartphones, original cellphones) and wealthier parents started giving them to kids, people were freaking out how inappropriate. Then smartphones for kids.

I cannot even fathom what kids are exposed to these days before they are even in high school.

pbj19682• 3 years ago

Surgeon Generals tend to be kind of nuts.

diordiderot2• 3 years ago

Surgeons General*

Edit: Was that the joke?

LoganDark• 3 years ago

Honestly, yes. I grew up using the Internet from about the age of 5... but that was back then. This is now, where apps like Snapchat and TikTok exist. The internet is no longer safe to explore in that way.

Surgeon General says 13 is ‘too early’ to join social media

Related Stories