Instagram is adult entertainment; tame internet for kids


By Ross Douthat,

The rise in big tech and social media present a series of difficult, if not intractable, problems for western societies. Our internet behemoths are actually huge media companies that pretend to be neutral platforms, feasting on the revenues that once supported the old media ecosystem while rejecting normal forms of editorial responsibility.

Their key products are agents of decentralized suspicion, generating information overload and fueling both populist paranoia and centrist hysteria. Meanwhile, their leaders run transnational pseudo-governments, wielding traditional political powers – cultural censorship, political banishment, structuring large markets – without clear lines of political accountability.

Figuring out how to cope with these challenges is a generational political project, and there is a reasonably strong possibility that Facebook’s Khanate and the Most Peaceful Republic of Amazon will defeat the efforts of real-world republics to restrain their power.

Nonetheless, there is a relatively loose starting point for the political dilemmas that cloud most Internet regulatory plans: we can try to further isolate childhood and adolescence from the reach of social media.

Two weeks ago The Wall Street Journal reported what Facebook’s own internal research shows about how Instagram, its photo-based social network, affects the mental state of the roughly 22 million teens who log on in the United States every day. The revelations won’t come as a surprise to anyone who has taken a peek at social trends since the dawn of the social media era, or for that matter anyone who knows someone with teenagers: Internal documents suggest that the The app has helped teenage depression and anxiety, suicidal ideation and body image issues.

Also read: Facebook delays Instagram Kids app for 13-year-olds

These are not the first results to link the use of social media to young people’s discontent, and whenever information like this enters the public conversation, there are two main reactions.

On the one hand, from skeptics who fear uncontrollable moral panic and are inclined to give new technologies the benefit of the doubt, there are attempts to separate the data, to argue that correlation is not causation (perhaps being kids who are already prone to discontent are more likely to spend more time online etc.) These responses assume that advocating for restrictions on a product that people clearly like to use is inherently dangerous or illiberal – and therefore the the onus is on restaurateurs to establish foolproof proof of the danger they fear.

Alternatively, from people willing to believe the evidence that social media is bad for you, there is a familiar wave of anger at the tech companies themselves, who are accused of only caring about their numbers (” expanding its base of young users is vital for the company generates an annual turnover of more than 100 billion dollars, “the Facebook Journal article notes,” and it does not want to compromise their engagement with the platform. shape ‘) instead of being socially responsible and recognizing that they are a bunch of nerds who get rich by ruining the world.

My personal feeling is that when you are dealing with children, none of these reactions are quite correct. Many of the problems created by Internet companies involve the aggregation of decisions made, for lack of a better expression, by consenting adults. Amazon has helped carve the heart of the United States, in part because millions of people love convenience and low prices. Misinformation, rumors, and fake news have spread across Facebook, in part because there is a strong human predisposition to share things that confirm our own biases and, in this country, the First Amendment protections to do so. And while the common good may require certain adult decisions to be overturned or restricted, in a free society we are rightly hesitant about making this kind of judgment.

However, restricting the decisions of minors is another matter. 14-year-old teenager has no more constitutional right to use Instagram than she has the constitutional right to buy one-fifth of Hennessy’s, and strong limits on teenage access to various substances and products are a normal feature of liberal society – opposed primarily by the sort of libertarian who forever identifies with his 13-year-old self.

This libertarian’s argument, in this case, boils down to the idea that if you have some new, blatantly addicting technology that may well be associated with depression, narcissism, and self-harm, you have to wait for certainty. absolute in this association before starting. thinking about the limits of how kids use it, as there was once a moral panic about comics and it wasn’t that embarrassing. I may have buried my 13-year-old self too much, but I’m not convinced.

But if we’re willing to think about putting limits on the teenage Instagram experience, we probably need something more than a general rage against reckless Silicon Valley nerds. Yes, ideally social media companies would self-regulate in their dealings with teens, and it’s true that following the Wall Street Journal’s bad publicity, Facebook is temporarily halting plans to explicitly launch a version. from Instagram. for kids. But real and sustained self-regulation usually only occurs under threat of external action or with the establishment of a new consensus around what is acceptable to sell to children. So, for people who read the Journal article and come away furious with Facebook, the question should be: what exact consensus do you want? What standards do you expect Instagram or any other business to follow? In view of the data, what rules must they obey?

And if your answer is that they should be forced to invent an algorithm that doesn’t fuel depression or anxiety, then I’m not sure I take your anger seriously. You set us up for a future of endless public promises to fine tune the algorithm coupled with constant pressure behind the scenes to get as many as possible, damn the mental health effects. (A future very similar to our own present.)

No, if you really want to take precautionary steps that could really limit the damage done by social media, you need those steps to be much simpler and more straightforward: you have to create a world where social media is meant to be for. adults and older children. the networks are supposed to control their members and try to prevent children under the age of 16 or 18 from entering.

What would be lost in such a world? Arguably, social media provides essential forms of connection and belonging to isolated and unhappy children in their flesh and blood environment. (Although if this is really the case, you would expect the previous decade to be an inflection point towards improving adolescent mental health, which it most certainly was not.) support that this provides opportunities for children to experiment creatively and develop as artists and innovators. . (Although the belief that TikTok nurtures aesthetic genius sometimes feels the illusion of a Philistine, nurtured by an adult facility that lacks the self-confidence to actually educate its children about the distinction between quality and waste.)

Either way, however, in a world where Instagram couldn’t rely on 15-year-olds to mine its stats, some of these alleged benefits of social media would still be available through the wider internet, which offered all kinds of forms of community, all kinds of outlets for creativity, before the arrival of Twitter and Facebook.

A key issue with social media, from this perspective, is not just their online character, but their scale. As Chris Hayes put it in a recent essay for The New Yorker, the contemporary internet universalizes “the psychological experience of celebrity” and takes “all the mechanisms of human relations and puts them to work” while searching further. But it happens in a much deeper way on a network like Instagram, with all of its millions of users swarming, than it would in a forum or chatroom for a specific niche identity or interest.

So the goal of preventing teens from using major social media wouldn’t be to achieve perfect compliance (obviously kids would always slip on it) or to prevent some version of Teen Facebook or Teen TikTok from being able to. take shape on a smaller scale. It would allow an experience of adolescence freed from an automatic pressure to come together on platforms built to be panopticon, to host performances adapted to audiences by the tens of millions and to create addictive pressures that clearly render the fully mature adults a little crazy. .

Saving these adults may not be possible. But taming the internet enough to keep a childhood free from its worst inconveniences – well, if we can’t even accomplish that, we deserve the bleak future algorithms have prepared.

Previous HomeGoods has finally launched its online store - the wait is over
Next Jones County grocery store owner discusses difficulty with staff, procurement and how he's handled

No Comment

Leave a reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *