Like most folks, I have suffered personal loss. I lost my parents many years ago, and I lost a number of very close friends who left us way too soon. But I’ve never been a parent, so there is no way I can possibly know what it is to lose a child. I can, however, sympathize and empathize with grieving parents, especially when they had no control over the fate of their child. Parents can’t predict that their child will be killed by a drunk driver. Parents can’t prevent a child from getting terminal cancer. Parents can’t stop a drive-by shooting or have x-ray vision to know that candy has been laced with a toxic substance. And parents can’t always know the extent of their child’s mental state or proclivity for committing suicide. Yes, there are signs to look for when a child is emotionally disturbed, such as certain changes in personal habits and behaviors, but parents are often not aware of the triggers that lead their child to take his own life. And that brings me to last week’s Congressional hearing, and the problem of and with social media.
On January 31, the United States Senate Judiciary Committee convened a hearing in which the chief executives of five tech companies were called to testify and be questioned about the dangers of social media on children, particularly teenagers. Appearing were Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg, Snapchat CEO Evan Spiegel, TikTok CEO Shou Zi Chew, Discord CEO Jason Citron, and X CEO Linda Yaccarino. In the gallery sat parents holding up photos of their children who had committed suicide after being affected by content on and messaging through various social media platforms.
The hearing was ostensibly scheduled to address child sexual exploitation facilitated by those online platforms. But it also brought into focus the growing number of teen suicides that parents and politicians blame solely on social media, and which Louisiana Senator John Kennedy referred to as “killing fields of information.” Said Kennedy to the five CEOs, “You have convinced over 2 billion people to give up all of their personal information in exchange for getting to see what their high school friends had for dinner Saturday night.”
Trusting teens who do give up their personal information put themselves at risk for any number of traumatic outcomes including everything from blackmail over nude photos to agreeing to meet a pedophile who they thought was someone their own age. Social media has also been blamed for facilitating cyber bullying which has led many young teens to take their own life. It’s no wonder that Senator Josh Hawley asked if any of the CEOs would like to publicly apologize to the parents in attendance. Zuckerberg stood up, faced the parents, and expressed his regret for the lives lost.
Emotions ran high in the hearing room and for once, both political parties seemed to walk in lockstep, showing compassion for parents and contempt for the CEOs. But as with most all other televised Congressional hearings, this one was for show. It was a chance for senators to simultaneously express sympathy for “victims” of social media, and outrage over the greed of those whose companies profit from social media.
The question is, will anything positive come from the hearing? Sadly, it’s not likely. Similar hearings about school massacres have yielded no substantive gun reforms. For years now I and a handful of elected officials have called for the FCC to regulate social media platforms but to no avail. That’s because Congress is famous for grandstanding then doing nothing. The good news is that in the absence of Congressional action, there is a simple solution for weakening social media’s hold on children and teens. It’s called parental vigilance.
Last year NPR reported that the American Psychological Association recommended parents should closely monitor their children’s social media feed, especially during early adolescence. The APA also said parents should “stop dangerous content that their child is exposed to.” But with apologies to the APA, there are bolder steps parents can take to protect their child. For one, they can issue their kids old-fashioned jitterbug type phones, which do not allow access to the internet. For another, they can block social media sites on their child’s home computer or laptop. These are easy steps to take which merely require parents to be assertive (and protective). That’s why I am a bit frustrated with parents who showed up at last week’s hearing and placed all of the blame on social media for the death of their children. Social media is a tool, but it’s also a weapon the same as a gun. A parent who would never keep a loaded gun in the house has no problem arming their child with smartphones and the ability to access social media and download all sorts of apps.
Predators, blackmailers, and con men will always be with us, but they can’t ply their trade if their intended prey is unreachable. Until such time as tech companies and technology can fully protect kids, then limiting access is a parent’s best defense against the dangers of social media.
February 6, 2024 @ 5:42 pm
Suicide by Social Media?
Like most folks, I have suffered personal loss. I lost my parents many years ago, and I lost a number of very close friends who left us way too soon. But I’ve never been a parent, so there is no way I can possibly know what it is to lose a child. I can, however, sympathize and empathize with grieving parents, especially when they had no control over the fate of their child. Parents can’t predict that their child will be killed by a drunk driver. Parents can’t prevent a child from getting terminal cancer. Parents can’t stop a drive-by shooting or have x-ray vision to know that candy has been laced with a toxic substance. And parents can’t always know the extent of their child’s mental state or proclivity for committing suicide. Yes, there are signs to look for when a child is emotionally disturbed, such as certain changes in personal habits and behaviors, but parents are often not aware of the triggers that lead their child to take his own life. And that brings me to last week’s Congressional hearing, and the problem of and with social media.
On January 31, the United States Senate Judiciary Committee convened a hearing in which the chief executives of five tech companies were called to testify and be questioned about the dangers of social media on children, particularly teenagers. Appearing were Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg, Snapchat CEO Evan Spiegel, TikTok CEO Shou Zi Chew, Discord CEO Jason Citron, and X CEO Linda Yaccarino. In the gallery sat parents holding up photos of their children who had committed suicide after being affected by content on and messaging through various social media platforms.
The hearing was ostensibly scheduled to address child sexual exploitation facilitated by those online platforms. But it also brought into focus the growing number of teen suicides that parents and politicians blame solely on social media, and which Louisiana Senator John Kennedy referred to as “killing fields of information.” Said Kennedy to the five CEOs, “You have convinced over 2 billion people to give up all of their personal information in exchange for getting to see what their high school friends had for dinner Saturday night.”
Trusting teens who do give up their personal information put themselves at risk for any number of traumatic outcomes including everything from blackmail over nude photos to agreeing to meet a pedophile who they thought was someone their own age. Social media has also been blamed for facilitating cyber bullying which has led many young teens to take their own life. It’s no wonder that Senator Josh Hawley asked if any of the CEOs would like to publicly apologize to the parents in attendance. Zuckerberg stood up, faced the parents, and expressed his regret for the lives lost.
Emotions ran high in the hearing room and for once, both political parties seemed to walk in lockstep, showing compassion for parents and contempt for the CEOs. But as with most all other televised Congressional hearings, this one was for show. It was a chance for senators to simultaneously express sympathy for “victims” of social media, and outrage over the greed of those whose companies profit from social media.
The question is, will anything positive come from the hearing? Sadly, it’s not likely. Similar hearings about school massacres have yielded no substantive gun reforms. For years now I and a handful of elected officials have called for the FCC to regulate social media platforms but to no avail. That’s because Congress is famous for grandstanding then doing nothing. The good news is that in the absence of Congressional action, there is a simple solution for weakening social media’s hold on children and teens. It’s called parental vigilance.
Last year NPR reported that the American Psychological Association recommended parents should closely monitor their children’s social media feed, especially during early adolescence. The APA also said parents should “stop dangerous content that their child is exposed to.” But with apologies to the APA, there are bolder steps parents can take to protect their child. For one, they can issue their kids old-fashioned jitterbug type phones, which do not allow access to the internet. For another, they can block social media sites on their child’s home computer or laptop. These are easy steps to take which merely require parents to be assertive (and protective). That’s why I am a bit frustrated with parents who showed up at last week’s hearing and placed all of the blame on social media for the death of their children. Social media is a tool, but it’s also a weapon the same as a gun. A parent who would never keep a loaded gun in the house has no problem arming their child with smartphones and the ability to access social media and download all sorts of apps.
Predators, blackmailers, and con men will always be with us, but they can’t ply their trade if their intended prey is unreachable. Until such time as tech companies and technology can fully protect kids, then limiting access is a parent’s best defense against the dangers of social media.