Social Media is Bad for Teens, But Can the Government Really Help?

The State is not an effective vehicle for solving teen problems created by social media.

Rawpixel, Public Domain.

In the wake of the recent hearings on Capitol Hill, there appears to be energy behind federal legislation designed to protect minors online, potentially including a ban on minors under the age of 16 (or 18).

But questions remain about the technological feasibility of such a barrier, the constitutionality of the law, and whether it would require massive invasions of privacy for all Americans who wish to use social media. 

Proponents point out (rightly) that we don’t allow children to vote or drive cars (before the age of 16). If parents and guardians hold certain rights in trust for their children until they reach the age of majority, there seems to be no logical reason why social media should be an exception.

Detractors raise the ever-present concern that we are not talking about an abstract, ideal piece of legislation that creates a clean solution to a messy problem, but rather this current group of legislators drafting legislation that serves their political interests and which might even serve the interests of the companies they are supposedly regulating. Those companies appear keen on the passage of such legislation. Perhaps Mark Zuckerberg wants to avoid anymore grilling of the kind he received last week. Or perhaps Meta and Snap see an opportunity to stifle competition.

The Harm is Real

At the same time, Jonathan Haidt presents a very convincing case that social media caused the decline in the mental health of teens over the last ten years. He argues this is closer to the case for smoking and lung cancer, where correlation ended up being proof of causation, than to the case for video games and violence (where the steep rise of violent video games in the late 1990s and 2000s correlated with one of the sharpest decreases in violent crime in American history). His team has shown statistically significant effects from smartphones on teen girls throughout the Anglosphere and Europe. This is based not simply on subjective claims about anxiety but on suicides and self-harm. It’s hard to waive away a suicide increase as “just better reporting and less stigma.” He has addressed all of his critics’ objections to my satisfaction, at least. 

Haidt doesn’t believe that legislation will be a silver bullet which will prevent any teens from ever accessing social media. He believes that making it a little harder for teens will be enough to have a serious effect on the problem (because if fewer teens are on TikTok, TikTok will be less cool), and will give cover to parents and teachers who want to do something about the problem but feel unable. 

I don’t think we should pin our hopes on a piece of legislation which, for as much as it might be desirable, might not do much to solve the problem and might be unconstitutional, especially when (as Lenore Skenazy points out) the solution already exists, and we can implement it right now, and it’s free. 

Parents Can Parent, Schools Can Enforce Their Rules

What solution is that? Parents and teachers can take away their kids’ phones. Individuals who want to use their phones less can put them down and go outside. Nobody has a gun to their head forcing them to give their eleven-year-old a smartphone. 

I don’t have kids myself, so I don’t have any skin in the game. But I’ve met plenty of parents and teachers over the years who didn’t believe that they had to indulge teenagers’ every whim, who made similar tough choices, and who didn’t care if “everybody” was “doing it.” My own parents seemed to have little trouble saying no to me, including when my friends were doing something I wanted to do. Almost without exception, they were right, and I was wrong. Some of my friends’ parents were similarly immune to “everybody is doing it” arguments.

It may be hard to enforce a schoolwide ban on smartphones. But perhaps it’s not as hard as you’d think. When I was in high school, hats were banned inside the school building. It was just as hard to enforce a ban on hats in Rockbridge County in 2010 as it is to enforce a ban on phones today. Some teachers did nothing about hats because they didn’t want to deal with it. Other teachers collected hats like scalps, stopping class to accost random kids walking by in the hallway, confiscating their hats, and confronting every single student they saw wearing a hat. Did they catch all students? No, but they made a difference between a hat-filled school and a school where a few kids occasionally got away with wearing a hat, and most didn’t. All because they believed in enforcing the rules, no matter the cost. 

A Way Out of the Current Crisis

A national digital age of majority (preferably 16 or 18), or a ban on TikTok, might go some way towards addressing the current crisis. Barring that, we’d at least need a culture with strongly enforced norms supporting schools and parents in restricting their teenagers’ digital access (indeed, there are already some communities in the United States where this exists, often religious or rural or otherwise separated in some way from mainstream culture). 

However, many people need help now. They can’t afford to wait for the current Congress to do something, especially when that something might be too little, too late. Families of current teens can’t afford to wait. Neither can members of Gen Z, especially those beyond any digital age of majority. And if we are ever to establish that culture of strong norms, we have to begin somewhere. Whether or not Congress does pass legislation partially ameliorating the situation, countless individuals and families will still need specific help on a personal level. If the proponents of such legislation get everything they want, would the problem go away? Or would legislators pat themselves on the back because they “fought for kids and parents,” and would the people who’ve been saying “there ought to be a law” feel secure in the knowledge that “something” is “being done” about the crisis?

I think we know what would happen. The legislation would have an effect, and it might be a good one, but it would not save every kid, every family, or every school. Plenty of parents would wake up the next day and realize their kids were still addicted to screens. Plenty of kids would wake up and find themselves still depressed. 

The federal government is not an effective vehicle for solving problems of this kind. We like to think that it is because we’d like to think that something or someone can solve problems on a societal scale. We’d like to appeal to some authority who can take away our burdens. 

But there’s just us. Individual American citizens working in partnership with other citizens in our communities—friends, coworkers, neighbors, family, and members of our congregations. The federal government may have a role to play—I, for one, wouldn’t shed a tear if TikTok was embargoed tomorrow and teens were banned from Snapchat and Facebook until 18—but fully addressing the teen mental health crisis will come down to the efforts of people like us: individuals, families, educators, institutions which work with young people, and teens themselves. 

It starts with parents who refuse to give their kids smartphones, regardless of what the government says, and teachers who refuse to let kids use phones in their classroom, regardless of what the kids say. Some teachers and parents already do this. Some parents, by personality, have much less trouble saying no to their kids, and some parents don’t care about being “the uncool parents” or being the only parents in a given community making a certain lifestyle choice. These parents can start a trend. 

Many parents are looking for permission to deny their children phones (or take them away). They just don’t want to be the only ones doing it. All it takes is one or two parents in a community who are willing to go first to catalyze a change in the community. This change won’t be a panacea, but it will be a vital step towards a healthy future. 

Please help us in our efforts to provide thought-provoking content by offering a donation to The Freemen Foundation.

What About Gen Z?

Lest we forget, a digital age of majority won’t do anything for anyone over the age of 18 (although a nationwide ban on TikTok might go a long way towards cutting down on the amount of terrorist propaganda Gen Z seems to be marinating in). College students and twenty-somethings have borne the brunt of the social-media mental health crisis, and even if the federal government “does something,” they will find themselves grappling with the consequences. 

Some in Gen Z are inclined to say that “it’s too late” for them. Their only hope is that Gen Alpha won’t have their brains “hijacked” by algorithms. 

What a terrible thing to be twenty-four and think that it’s too late for you and your peers? With three-quarters of your life left? 

Luckily for Gen Z, it isn’t too late. Every single day is a new opportunity to put the phone down and go outside. That might be easier said than done. Smartphone withdrawal is a real thing, but if members of the Greatest Generation could quit cigarettes after decades of smoking, members of Gen Z can put their phones down for a few hours every day.

Some individuals, by personality, will naturally be less attached to phones and more disciplined, either because they lack interest in social media or because they are good at delaying gratification. Anyone struggling with a social media or smartphone addiction should want these individuals on their side. As with the case of parents, it is easier to start a trend when you have someone who doesn’t care if he or she has to go it alone (i.e., someone who can set the trend). 

Young people are perfectly capable of putting their phones down. But not if they tell themselves that “it’s impossible” because their attention spans have been stolen.

To Sum Up

Social media has not been good for teenagers (or adults). If a law is passed establishing a digital age of majority (which is actually enforced), that might help, but it won’t solve the problem. Only we can do that, by ourselves and in our communities, wherever we encounter it. We know what to do. It just takes effort. 

Ben Connelly is a writer, long-distance runner, former engineer, and author of “Grit: A Practical Guide to Developing Physical and Mental Toughness.” He publishes short stories and essays at Hardihood Books. @benconnelly6712