Families must set social media rules
The editorial “Facing social media’s harms” [Opinion, Sept. 2] was an excellent description of this social media problem facing us, parents, and children.
Our goal should be, as stated: to achieve the success Australia has attained. However, I don’t think anything will be done in our country to equal that success.
Social media companies’ goal is to make as much money as they can. They have no incentive to change. Take Meta, for example. Reading Sarah Wynn-Williams’ “Careless People,” one can see that money indeed is its primary goal. Meta says it will put up controls, but it doesn’t enforce them.
As for Congress, little will ever emerge from that body. Members get too much money from social media companies and won’t bite the hand that feeds them.
The only solution is for parents to step up, monitor their children, and enforce strict social media limits.
— John Wolf, Levittown
Banning kids from AI isn’t the answer
Abby McCloskey asserts that “The only way to address those worries [about the dangers of AI] is not to toggle with the app, but to limit kids’ exposure to it entirely” [“Only one way to make LI safe for kids,” Opinion, Aug. 30].
As the founder of an educational consulting company, I believe this all-or-nothing, head-in-the-sand approach is, at best, a well-intentioned but misguided short term solution to a long term situation that has no clear, foreseeable resolution. There are certainly well-documented dangers to inappropriately using AI as a substitute friend, confidant, or therapist. Research on the effect of AI use on a growing mind is still unfolding.
Considering the impact of AI on children requires a nuanced approach that takes into account numerous factors such as the child’s age; whether there is adult involvement and supervision; the purpose of the interaction; the degree of AI literacy education the child has received; and what guardrails can help guide responsible, ethical, and effective use.
It’s time for the adults in children’s lives — in particular, parents and teachers — to own this responsibility. This shut-it-down approach will not help the children already using AI nor will it prepare them for the world of ubiquitous technology that exists today.
— Ivy Leibowitz, Lido Beach
Long Island plumes need urgent action
Suffolk County’s toxic plume and the related Bethpage plume are major concerns for the future of Long Island residents [“Schumer calls on Navy to expedite cleanup of Suffolk toxic plume,” News, Sept. 4].
The longer cleanup is delayed, the farther the plumes can spread. Time causes the expansion of the plumes. Drinking water is just one issue. The Peconic River flows into the bay, which mixes with the ocean. The Island’s economy could be seriously affected if contamination makes food unsafe or harms public confidence.
And how is the polluted matter disposed of? Is it treated or just moved to another location where it pollutes that environment? And who at that location would approve accepting the toxic material?
— Steve Birkeland, Bayport
FEMA aid rejection deserves answers now
The repeated rejection of the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s blizzard assistance for this state should trouble every Long Islander — for two reasons [“FEMA blizzard assistance for NY rejected again,” News, Sept. 3].
First, the rejection itself is hard to square with the facts: Our state’s application reportedly met every threshold FEMA requires for federal disaster assistance. If a qualifying application is turned down anyway, New Yorkers are left footing the bill for damage that federal disaster relief exists to cover. That alone deserves scrutiny and an explanation.
Second, and more disheartening, is the response from our own congressman, Rep. Andrew Garbarino. Rather than pressing FEMA, he told the public that the application “did not meet federal requirements,” echoing the administration’s line instead of standing up for Long Island families and municipalities left to absorb the cleanup costs. That is not what representation is supposed to look like.
We elect members of Congress to fight for our interests in Washington, especially when disaster aid is on the line. When a representative sides with political convenience over his own district’s documented needs, he isn’t serving Long Island — he’s abandoning it.
Long Islanders should demand answers.
— Susan Feifer, Massapequa
Trump must negotiate a real Canadian deal
By changing the name of Lake Ontario, President Donald Trump is trying to distract the American people from the economic impact of tariffs that Americans will pay on Canadian goods [“Trump orders lake renaming,” News, Aug. 28]. He needs to stop renaming things and work on a real trade deal with Canada.
In 2020, Trump signed an updated trade deal with Canada and Mexico that he claimed was “the largest, most significant, modern, and balanced trade agreement in history.”
If he now thinks that his 2020 balanced trade deal was a bad deal, it is on him to get down to business and negotiate a new deal. His proposed tariffs on Canada will hurt U.S. workers, businesses, and consumers.
— Amy Sullivan, Quogue
WE ENCOURAGE YOU TO JOIN OUR DAILY CONVERSATION. Just go to newsday.com/submitaletter and follow the prompts. Or email your opinion to letters@newsday.com. Submissions should be no more than 200 words. Please provide your full name, hometown, phone number and any relevant expertise or affiliation. Include the headline and date of the article you are responding to. Letters become the property of Newsday and are edited for all media. Due to volume, readers are limited to one letter in print every 45 days. Published letters reflect the ratio received on each topic.
