I have been a proud Luddite against social media ever since Instagram, Snapchat, and other platforms have captured the attention of my generation. Those around me know to avoid the topic if they do not want to listen to a condescending rant that reminds them of their grandmother. I begrudgingly maintain a Linkedin account, but other than that, I try to stay true to my belief that social media should play an extremely limited role, if any, in our society. My initial convictions about this subject began after listening to Jonathan Haidt, a social psychologist at NYU, give a lecture connecting the youth mental health crisis to the prevalent usage of smartphones and social media among Gen Z. Many of my psychology classes and internship experiences during my undergrad years reaffirmed these beliefs, and I have not shut up about it since.

As you might imagine, I was overjoyed when multiple countries around the world started banning social media for children under 16 years old and have been hopeful of efforts and initiatives to do the same in the United States. Although I am thrilled that momentum is shifting toward regulating and punishing social media companies, I still remain skeptical about what role the law can and should play in this space. In our own country, the first sign of change seemed to come from national legislation trying to ban Tik Tok. It comes as no surprise that this has not yet resulted in any true ban, as the legislation was motivated by national security concerns rather than protecting our nation’s youth. ByteDance’s divestment from the app and the majority ownership by a consortium of American companies has allowed Tik Tok to survive and thrive. Recently, successful lawsuits against Meta and Google reveal greater glimmers of hope for this mission. The two megagiants were found liable for social media addiction among children and forced into massive payouts. Even with these developments, many questions still remain unanswered. Can apps like Facebook and Instagram actually provide adequate protections for children? The entire business model seems to rely on making people stay on an app for as long as possible and to return to it frequently. 

People also raise concerns about free speech by banning children from these platforms. I am personally unsympathetic to this argument on the grounds that the harm caused by social media to children vastly outweighs any limitation on their speech. However, there is something to be said about the power these apps provide to people whose voices have historically been suppressed. For example, social media served as a catalyst for organized youth protests in Nepal that led to real political change. The old Nepalese government and other regimes censor these platforms to prevent this very change. I am certainly unnerved by these implications of social media bans, but I still believe that the benefits of social media cannot make up for countless tragic deaths and diagnoses among young people.

I have greater concerns about the results of full social media bans for children in countries like Australia and Indonesia. Laws have come into effect, and apps have been removed from stores, but usage may not actually be impacted all that much. Young people often take advantage of different, nicher apps not captured under the ban or VPNs to log into more popular apps that are not banned in most other countries. Some have stated that they appreciate the ban, and there are personal anecdotes about its successes, but without more widespanning legislation, current laws seem to lack adequate force to achieve the goals of the legislature. What’s the point of a social media ban, if kids have no issue logging into the same apps by using a VPN or turning to sketchier, harder-to-regulate apps?

Many have already come to the likely correct conclusion that I still cannot bring myself to believe. Regulating kids’ social media usage is reserved for parents and not government officials. I cannot say with any certainty how well parental controls work on social media apps, but I imagine that the historic trend of strict parents with sneaky children has not seen any changes in quite a few millenia. I can fully recognize that legislation has not provided the solutions needed to solve this urgent problem, but merely leaving it to busy parents with a lack of technological savvy also signals a failure in my eyes. 

In my opinion, regulation is a must in this everchanging landscape. Perhaps we are headed on the right track with the successful lawsuits against Google and Meta. Full-on bans clearly do not serve their purpose, but leaving parents to do the dirty work also seems untenable. I hold out hope that more litigation against tech giants will result in forcing their hand to come up with more creative solutions to address this issue. Their size and influence is daunting, but now, it is clear that they are not invincible.

---

Joe Monti is a first-year student at BC Law. Contact him at montij@bc.edu.