As a scholar studying social media algorithms and youth, and as a parent of a teenager, I understand the urgency. But teenagers will not stop using social media; faced with restrictions, they will move to less visible, less regulated spaces, with no reduction in exposure to the same harms.
The collateral effects also deserve consideration. For LGBTQ+ youth, teens in unsupportive homes, or those seeking reproductive health information, social media is not a luxury — it is a lifeline. This bill risks cutting that line. Research shows that isolation, not online connection, is among the greatest risk factors for vulnerable adolescents.
My concern is not with the goal of the bill but, rather, with whether the measure is the most effective way to achieve it. A more targeted approach — for example, seeking stronger algorithmic transparency and addictive-design restrictions — would address root causes; the House bill addresses only symptoms.
Myojung Chung
Boston
The writer holds a doctoral degree in mass communications and is an associate professor of journalism and media innovation at Northeastern University.
Proposed law is a blunt instrument that will have unintended consequences
There’s nothing controversial about removing cellphones from the classroom (“Pass school cellphone ban — with or without social media restrictions,” Editorial, April 12). Not so the provisions regarding age verification on social media that were slipped, without public hearings, into the House bill (“Bill calls for social media ban for children,” Page A1, April 7).
Social media users needing to prove their age sounds good in the way that voters needing to prove their citizenship sounds good — that is, until you understand all of the unintended consequences. Using Florida’s highly restrictive and controversial law as a model was not a good start.
The bill leaves it up to technology companies to come up with a way to verify and keep the data private. First, it’s easy to imagine scenarios where personal data get harvested for malevolent purposes. In addition, the bill doesn’t address kids’ free speech rights and their rights to communicate over the internet independent of parental permission.
Figuring out how to protect kids from harmful social media influences is important, but this blunt instrument is the wrong way to do it and needs much more careful review.
Barbara Katzenberg
Lexington
Young people need protection from the clutches of social media
I applaud the common-sense legislation prohibiting children under 14 from having accounts on social media platforms. As recent landmark court cases have shown, unfettered use of social media for young people is deleterious to their mental health and addictive. To the extent that students of an impressionable age immerse themselves daily in social media for hours on end, it hinders them from engaging in far more constructive pursuits contributing to their intellectual, physical, and social development during their all-important formative years.
Irrespective of social media, young people today are already exposed to all manner of easily accessible content that is harmful and disturbing. Legislation that seeks to shield them from the clutches of social media before they are mature enough to deal with it is most welcome indeed.
Mark Godes
Chelsea
Great in theory. Of course, reality is a whole different story.
Posted on BostonGlobe.com by amb21t
Going to the moon was great in theory. Deciding to do it was the first important decision. The thinking, engineering, and hard work by many toward an agreed-upon goal was what got us there.
Posted on BostonGlobe.com by telwan
