A letter I sent my senators, please consider similar.

[Jazman]

Has anyone read this The Best Way to Regulate Social Media... and what do you think of the author's suggestion?

[Ken]

Has anyone read this The Best Way to Regulate Social Media... and what do you think of the author's suggestion?

I think it is too clever by half and would be ineffective due to the algorithmic nature of social media.

In other words, because of the algorithms and interactive nature of social media, every single user has a unique and custom-tailored social media stream that is different from every other user on the planet. For example, my Facebook feed (which I rarely ever check) is mostly AP Science Teacher private groups and private parent groups for the universities that my children are attending. So it is mostly stuff like "anyone have a better lab for gel electrophoresis than the one in the AP handbook?" Or "My daughter is having difficulty getting into her preferred on-campus dorm. Can anyone recommend a private dorm alternative?" Along with the occasional Oregon hunting and fishing post from people I knew in HS.

So if the FTC were going to claim that Facebook is violating the terms of service they would have to do it individual user by individual user since there isn't just one single Facebook web site with content that they can point to. That doesn't really seem manageable as an enforcement action.

The better approach in my mind is to regulate the algorithms or simply prohibit them or make them an "opt-in" feature that is by default turned off for everyone, especially children. And then give parents better tools for regulating and filtering their children's content through the aps themselves, or better yet, universally through the phone itself. Such that the parent has one control panel that applies to the entire phone, not just a single app like TikTok. And then mandate that all the social media phone apps on both Apple and Android phones comply with this parent control panel.

There are actually two ways that kids use apps like TikTok. The first way is to just sit there and consume the content that the apps algorithm feeds them based on what they have previously watched and liked. That is the passive way of using social media that is most toxic for teens.

The second way is to look up specific content by a person that you know, or on a topic that you want to see. For example, if my daughter wants to see reviews of some particular product like a shampoo. She doesn't go to Amazon and read reviews. She searches it on TikTok and finds review videos about the product she is interested in. Even if you turned off all the algorithms for teens and made them op-in for adults people could still use the app to find specific content they are interested in. They just wouldn't be fed a constant stream of garbage designed to suck them in further and further and keep them "engaged" so that they see more ads.

[Josh]

Most these problems could be fixed with simple regulation. We’ve had a climate now for decades that any regulation is bad. The harsh truth is that big huge companies need to be regulated and need to be under the sharp eye of antitrust enforcers.

[Ken]

Most these problems could be fixed with simple regulation. We’ve had a climate now for decades that any regulation is bad. The harsh truth is that big huge companies need to be regulated and need to be under the sharp eye of antitrust enforcers.

I agree that we need more regulation. But I promise you that regulation is never simple.

Figuring out the most effective mix of regulation is the challenge.

[Outsider]

"National Security doesn't even mean 'national security' nowadays. It means anything critical of the current government."

[Ken]

"National Security doesn't even mean 'national security' nowadays. It means anything critical of the current government."

Wait. I thought you wanted the government to regulate social media like TikTok and that was the whole point of this thread.

Did you change your mind about that?

[Jazman]

Has anyone read this The Best Way to Regulate Social Media... and what do you think of the author's suggestion?

I think it is too clever by half and would be ineffective due to the algorithmic nature of social media.

In other words, because of the algorithms and interactive nature of social media, every single user has a unique and custom-tailored social media stream that is different from every other user on the planet. For example, my Facebook feed (which I rarely ever check) is mostly AP Science Teacher private groups and private parent groups for the universities that my children are attending. So it is mostly stuff like "anyone have a better lab for gel electrophoresis than the one in the AP handbook?" Or "My daughter is having difficulty getting into her preferred on-campus dorm. Can anyone recommend a private dorm alternative?" Along with the occasional Oregon hunting and fishing post from people I knew in HS.

So if the FTC were going to claim that Facebook is violating the terms of service they would have to do it individual user by individual user since there isn't just one single Facebook web site with content that they can point to. That doesn't really seem manageable as an enforcement action.

The better approach in my mind is to regulate the algorithms or simply prohibit them or make them an "opt-in" feature that is by default turned off for everyone, especially children. And then give parents better tools for regulating and filtering their children's content through the aps themselves, or better yet, universally through the phone itself. Such that the parent has one control panel that applies to the entire phone, not just a single app like TikTok. And then mandate that all the social media phone apps on both Apple and Android phones comply with this parent control panel.

There are actually two ways that kids use apps like TikTok. The first way is to just sit there and consume the content that the apps algorithm feeds them based on what they have previously watched and liked. That is the passive way of using social media that is most toxic for teens.

The second way is to look up specific content by a person that you know, or on a topic that you want to see. For example, if my daughter wants to see reviews of some particular product like a shampoo. She doesn't go to Amazon and read reviews. She searches it on TikTok and finds review videos about the product she is interested in. Even if you turned off all the algorithms for teens and made them op-in for adults people could still use the app to find specific content they are interested in. They just wouldn't be fed a constant stream of garbage designed to suck them in further and further and keep them "engaged" so that they see more ads.

Good points about the article. The title had a "too-good-to-be-true" feel about it... now I wouldn't be opposed to trying it or at least having it in the toolbox, but like you say, it wouldn't be the fix-all the author seems to be implying.
I also got to say, your suggestions sound so conservative/parents-rights/personal responsibility-ish! (I think they're good btw) but I find it interesting how the 'conservatives' here don't seem to like them... must be the spirit of the age; the 'I think he's a liberal, therefore I must oppose it' tendency...

[Josh]

“Personal responsibility” and “parents” were the excuse the tobacco industry used for years to market and sell harmful, addictive products to children for years. I’m quite suspicious of anyone who thinks they need to push responsibility for mass phenomena backed by billions of dollars onto relatively powerless parents.

[RZehr]

I wonder if responsible parents who would use tech to protect their children, are already protecting and teaching their children more than the average parents who wouldn’t use this proposed tech. The responsible one for example, might already be using the current tools at their disposal such as child settings, while others are not. So if the average parent doesn’t even bother with child setting, they won’t use higher blocking technology either.

This fact, we can expect to lead to exasperating and exacerbating long term disparities of results, between “advantaged” and “disadvantaged” (are those currently acceptable words?) children.

Then we will have the government step in anyway, and force society to bear the consequences of these results. (How might this be? Who knows? No one could have predicted that we would have the government telling companies that they couldn’t sort job applicants by criminal records, but here we are.)
So government involvement is going to happen anyway, one time or another. Either by blocking the porn, or by later designating the victims as a protected class or something goofy.

[Ken]

I wonder if responsible parents who would use tech to protect their children, are already protecting and teaching their children more than the average parents who wouldn’t use this proposed tech. The responsible one for example, might already be using the current tools at their disposal such as child settings, while others are not. So if the average parent doesn’t even bother with child setting, they won’t use higher blocking technology either.

This fact, we can expect to lead to exasperating and exacerbating long term disparities of results, between “advantaged” and “disadvantaged” (are those currently acceptable words?) children.

Then we will have the government step in anyway, and force society to bear the consequences of these results. (How might this be? Who knows? No one could have predicted that we would have the government telling companies that they couldn’t sort job applicants by criminal records, but here we are.)
So government involvement is going to happen anyway, one time or another. Either by blocking the porn, or by later designating the victims as a protected class or something goofy.

This leads to a larger question of who is responsible for raising children anyway? Parents or the government? Internet access is just a small part of that larger question.

Should the government be involved in making educational decisions for your children? Mandating, for example, that private schools and home schools match the same mandatory testing and curriculum requirements as the public schools?

Should the government be involved in the dietary decisions of families? Prohibiting red meats? Trans fats, nitrate processed meats? sugary sodas? etc. etc.?

Should the government get involved in the medical decisions of parents such as whether or not to have their children vaccinated?

Should the government be more involved in child safety? More tightly regulating farm work by children, for example? Or banning gas stoves which cause childhood asthma?

There is a spectrum from complete nanny state to complete deference to parents when it comes to the safety and wellbeing of children. We have to draw the line somewhere. Most people will put it somewhere in the middle. But it should be a relatively consistent line. In other words, we should use consistent standards when determining when it is appropriate for the government to intercede into the role of parents.