Social media is designed to be addictive; known harmful. Why do your kids have it?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't. I'm hoping they thank me later. Oldest not yet in high school, though, which is when it may be hard to hold out.

My closest childhood friend works for one of the big Silicon Valley companies. Her kids go to "Forest School" and she tries not to let them see the parents on devices at all. She's seen into the belly of the beast and knows enough to be scared.

I have two in high school in fcps. Neither has it.
They are doing just fine.

That’s cool. So are all the kids I know who do have it. We can share anecdotes all day.

Sure Jan

I know for some strange reason you want to believe all teens are depressed and mentally ill, but they just aren’t. Sorry to…disappoint you?

DP. You think if a kid isn’t showing signs of full blown depression or mental illness that social media isn’t possibly affecting their mental wellbeing?

No, but neither is it accurate to say that ALL or even MOST teens who have social media are negatively affected by it. It simply isn't true. The people asserting that either don't have teens at all, or their teens are not on social media, so they have no idea.

Depends on how you define “negatively affected.”

So your oldest is 8? 10? I know your type.

Why do you assume that? My oldest is 15.

If they don’t have social media, you are not qualified to remark on how it’s affecting their mental health.

Geez, you REALLY love social media for your kids (and likely yourself). I know your type, too.

Yet here you are. So much hand wringing!

This site is a massive waste of time and is addictive and is terrible for my mental wellbeing, but we both know this is not the type of social media we’re talking about when it comes to kids and teens.

My kids have fantastic relationships with so many of their cousins and other extended family thanks to social media. It is definitely a value add for us. It has also helped them to identify the sorts of kids they don’t want to be friends with.

How so?

PP here. Like some of the kids my DD is friends with on social media will post pics of themselves at parties holding alcoholic beverages. Or in very provocative looking photos with boyfriends and stuff like that.

So do you think social media is harmful for those kids? Or for kids who want to emulate or hang out with them?

I view it more as a parenting failure.

Yep, for giving them access to social media in the first place. Totally agree.

Nah. For being lazy parents. Same as parents who forbid social media because they are too lazy to monitor it or scaffold it.

At what age do you think a good parent allows social media?

NP. 13. Just be a parent, as with anything else.

I feel pretty good about my parenting skills overall. I have fantastic, trustworthy kids, but I still don’t feel like any of that’s worth much when we’re talking about AI-generated algorithms serving up non-stop content to adolescents trying to figure out who they are in the world. The effect can be subtle, but that’s what so frightening about it to me. Your kid might seem fine on the outside, but unless you’re sitting there scrolling with them, you really have no idea what they’re seeing and where the algorithm is trying to steer them. The entire point of these platforms is to harness users’ vulnerabilities to sell them stuff, or worse, ideas.

That can all be true and it can also be true that prohibiting across the board until they are legal adults, in addition to being logistically impossible, will release kids into the wild with no previous experience with social media.

I stand by what I said however many pages ago. Most of y’all freaking out about social media sound like your kids are younger. Parenting changes a lot between the end of elementary school and the end of high school. You have to start accepting that your babies aren’t babies anymore and helping them learn how to be adults. It’s not like a switch flips at 18 or 21 or 25 or whatever and they suddenly have good judgement and skills.

I guess we should just go ahead and let them drive cars and drink alcohol at 13, too. Why wait?

I knew one of you would say something like that, so fine.

These are not the same things. You are talking about 3 really different activities, each of which has its own risk/reward profile. Using social media is important for a lot of jobs. It’s also a common communication tool. It is also fairly toxic and has known addictive qualities. Alcohol is a common component in adult socializing, also known to be addictive and toxic. Driving is nearly essential for many people’s lives, but it is also dangerous and over-reliance on cars has effects on physical health, environmental health, urban planning, etc.

I would agree that it is important for a freshman in college to know how to drive, know how alcohol affects their body, and know how to competently use social media. I do not agree that those things should happen at 13. I would support 16 for moderate use of all 3, which I know you think is basically heresy, so I guess we can just agree that my number for these things is 16 and your number is whatever it is.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't. I'm hoping they thank me later. Oldest not yet in high school, though, which is when it may be hard to hold out.

My closest childhood friend works for one of the big Silicon Valley companies. Her kids go to "Forest School" and she tries not to let them see the parents on devices at all. She's seen into the belly of the beast and knows enough to be scared.

I have two in high school in fcps. Neither has it.
They are doing just fine.

That’s cool. So are all the kids I know who do have it. We can share anecdotes all day.

Sure Jan

I know for some strange reason you want to believe all teens are depressed and mentally ill, but they just aren’t. Sorry to…disappoint you?

DP. You think if a kid isn’t showing signs of full blown depression or mental illness that social media isn’t possibly affecting their mental wellbeing?

No, but neither is it accurate to say that ALL or even MOST teens who have social media are negatively affected by it. It simply isn't true. The people asserting that either don't have teens at all, or their teens are not on social media, so they have no idea.

Depends on how you define “negatively affected.”

So your oldest is 8? 10? I know your type.

Why do you assume that? My oldest is 15.

If they don’t have social media, you are not qualified to remark on how it’s affecting their mental health.

Geez, you REALLY love social media for your kids (and likely yourself). I know your type, too.

Yet here you are. So much hand wringing!

This site is a massive waste of time and is addictive and is terrible for my mental wellbeing, but we both know this is not the type of social media we’re talking about when it comes to kids and teens.

My kids have fantastic relationships with so many of their cousins and other extended family thanks to social media. It is definitely a value add for us. It has also helped them to identify the sorts of kids they don’t want to be friends with.

How so?

PP here. Like some of the kids my DD is friends with on social media will post pics of themselves at parties holding alcoholic beverages. Or in very provocative looking photos with boyfriends and stuff like that.

So do you think social media is harmful for those kids? Or for kids who want to emulate or hang out with them?

I view it more as a parenting failure.

Yep, for giving them access to social media in the first place. Totally agree.

Nah. For being lazy parents. Same as parents who forbid social media because they are too lazy to monitor it or scaffold it.

At what age do you think a good parent allows social media?

NP. 13. Just be a parent, as with anything else.

I feel pretty good about my parenting skills overall. I have fantastic, trustworthy kids, but I still don’t feel like any of that’s worth much when we’re talking about AI-generated algorithms serving up non-stop content to adolescents trying to figure out who they are in the world. The effect can be subtle, but that’s what so frightening about it to me. Your kid might seem fine on the outside, but unless you’re sitting there scrolling with them, you really have no idea what they’re seeing and where the algorithm is trying to steer them. The entire point of these platforms is to harness users’ vulnerabilities to sell them stuff, or worse, ideas.

That can all be true and it can also be true that prohibiting across the board until they are legal adults, in addition to being logistically impossible, will release kids into the wild with no previous experience with social media.

I stand by what I said however many pages ago. Most of y’all freaking out about social media sound like your kids are younger. Parenting changes a lot between the end of elementary school and the end of high school. You have to start accepting that your babies aren’t babies anymore and helping them learn how to be adults. It’s not like a switch flips at 18 or 21 or 25 or whatever and they suddenly have good judgement and skills.

I guess we should just go ahead and let them drive cars and drink alcohol at 13, too. Why wait?

I knew one of you would say something like that, so fine.

These are not the same things. You are talking about 3 really different activities, each of which has its own risk/reward profile. Using social media is important for a lot of jobs. It’s also a common communication tool. It is also fairly toxic and has known addictive qualities. Alcohol is a common component in adult socializing, also known to be addictive and toxic. Driving is nearly essential for many people’s lives, but it is also dangerous and over-reliance on cars has effects on physical health, environmental health, urban planning, etc.

I would agree that it is important for a freshman in college to know how to drive, know how alcohol affects their body, and know how to competently use social media. I do not agree that those things should happen at 13. I would support 16 for moderate use of all 3, which I know you think is basically heresy, so I guess we can just agree that my number for these things is 16 and your number is whatever it is.

I’m ok with 16, too, provided parents have spent some time educating their kids on what social media really is and why it’s dangerous. To be honest, I think that social media is the most dangerous of those three.

[Anonymous]

There are two different arguments going on in this thread, and trying to have them at the same time is not really useful.

One discussion is whether social media is, or can be, harmful to kids. And it honestly sounds like the vast majority of parents think it can be, but just disagree on (1) how harmful, (2) whether it is universally harmful, and (3) how much parents can mitigate that harm through parenting and supports. But it actually matters that most people agree it can be harmful, because that should be a shared value we could use to discuss things like delaying social media and smart phone use (something that is much more effective when parents do it en masse) and the kinds of education and supervision kids should have with it.

A separate discussion going on is who is the best parent based on their approach to social media. I'll be honest, I don't think this is ever a productive conversation, whether the metric being used is social media or kids sports or breastfeeding or private v. public or screen time or whatever. The truth is that families have vastly different resources, pressures, environments, and backgrounds, plus kids are themselves different, and I don't think it's possible to give out a Best Parent award on the basis of any of this stuff. Even if we could, what would it accomplish? In terms of doing right by our kids, we have to work within our own constraints.

Maybe we could focus on the first argument and just let go of the second. I'll start: I am definitely NOT the best parent. Take me out of the running. I still want to do right by my kid with regards to social media though.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There are two different arguments going on in this thread, and trying to have them at the same time is not really useful.

One discussion is whether social media is, or can be, harmful to kids. And it honestly sounds like the vast majority of parents think it can be, but just disagree on (1) how harmful, (2) whether it is universally harmful, and (3) how much parents can mitigate that harm through parenting and supports. But it actually matters that most people agree it can be harmful, because that should be a shared value we could use to discuss things like delaying social media and smart phone use (something that is much more effective when parents do it en masse) and the kinds of education and supervision kids should have with it.

A separate discussion going on is who is the best parent based on their approach to social media. I'll be honest, I don't think this is ever a productive conversation, whether the metric being used is social media or kids sports or breastfeeding or private v. public or screen time or whatever. The truth is that families have vastly different resources, pressures, environments, and backgrounds, plus kids are themselves different, and I don't think it's possible to give out a Best Parent award on the basis of any of this stuff. Even if we could, what would it accomplish? In terms of doing right by our kids, we have to work within our own constraints.

Maybe we could focus on the first argument and just let go of the second. I'll start: I am definitely NOT the best parent. Take me out of the running. I still want to do right by my kid with regards to social media though.

I'll co-sign this!

[Anonymous]

The anti social media parents are just mad that the rest of us won’t join them in their restrictions on their kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The anti social media parents are just mad that the rest of us won’t join them in their restrictions on their kids.

I’m not mad at you. I’m mad at Meta, TikTok, X, etc., and I’m sad that our kids are growing up immersed in the garbage discourse that these companies have helped sow. Even if you don’t let your kids have social media, the culture is so intertwined with these platforms that they’re heavily influenced regardless. I really do think it’s a shame.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The anti social media parents are just mad that the rest of us won’t join them in their restrictions on their kids.

I’m not mad at you. I’m mad at Meta, TikTok, X, etc., and I’m sad that our kids are growing up immersed in the garbage discourse that these companies have helped sow. Even if you don’t let your kids have social media, the culture is so intertwined with these platforms that they’re heavily influenced regardless. I really do think it’s a shame.

I mean, I agree. But I feel the same about vaping, drinking, and our consumerist society in general. I actually think my teens have a better sense of the fakeness of it all than many adults do. They are highly skeptical in general.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There are two different arguments going on in this thread, and trying to have them at the same time is not really useful.

One discussion is whether social media is, or can be, harmful to kids. And it honestly sounds like the vast majority of parents think it can be, but just disagree on (1) how harmful, (2) whether it is universally harmful, and (3) how much parents can mitigate that harm through parenting and supports. But it actually matters that most people agree it can be harmful, because that should be a shared value we could use to discuss things like delaying social media and smart phone use (something that is much more effective when parents do it en masse) and the kinds of education and supervision kids should have with it.

A separate discussion going on is who is the best parent based on their approach to social media. I'll be honest, I don't think this is ever a productive conversation, whether the metric being used is social media or kids sports or breastfeeding or private v. public or screen time or whatever. The truth is that families have vastly different resources, pressures, environments, and backgrounds, plus kids are themselves different, and I don't think it's possible to give out a Best Parent award on the basis of any of this stuff. Even if we could, what would it accomplish? In terms of doing right by our kids, we have to work within our own constraints.

Maybe we could focus on the first argument and just let go of the second. I'll start: I am definitely NOT the best parent. Take me out of the running. I still want to do right by my kid with regards to social media though.

As for the evidence of harm, there is a massive body of evidence backing the majority of states (30 out of the 50 states) suing Insta, TickTock, Snap, and others.

Literally thousands upon thousands of pages of evidence. Suicide investigations, dull scientific journal papers, research projects, Ph.D theses, etc.

Unless you are on the jury (or more likely, the judge and her/his staff) you will not bother to read even 1/100th of that evidence.

But, you might watch an entertaining work which reflects the same conclusion all the research reaches :

Social media is designed to be addictive and it is harmful (- a conclusion many of you seem to doubt):

Watch for yourself and decide for yourself.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are two different arguments going on in this thread, and trying to have them at the same time is not really useful.

One discussion is whether social media is, or can be, harmful to kids. And it honestly sounds like the vast majority of parents think it can be, but just disagree on (1) how harmful, (2) whether it is universally harmful, and (3) how much parents can mitigate that harm through parenting and supports. But it actually matters that most people agree it can be harmful, because that should be a shared value we could use to discuss things like delaying social media and smart phone use (something that is much more effective when parents do it en masse) and the kinds of education and supervision kids should have with it.

A separate discussion going on is who is the best parent based on their approach to social media. I'll be honest, I don't think this is ever a productive conversation, whether the metric being used is social media or kids sports or breastfeeding or private v. public or screen time or whatever. The truth is that families have vastly different resources, pressures, environments, and backgrounds, plus kids are themselves different, and I don't think it's possible to give out a Best Parent award on the basis of any of this stuff. Even if we could, what would it accomplish? In terms of doing right by our kids, we have to work within our own constraints.

Maybe we could focus on the first argument and just let go of the second. I'll start: I am definitely NOT the best parent. Take me out of the running. I still want to do right by my kid with regards to social media though.

As for the evidence of harm, there is a massive body of evidence backing the majority of states (30 out of the 50 states) suing Insta, TickTock, Snap, and others.

Literally thousands upon thousands of pages of evidence. Suicide investigations, dull scientific journal papers, research projects, Ph.D theses, etc.

Unless you are on the jury (or more likely, the judge and her/his staff) you will not bother to read even 1/100th of that evidence.

But, you might watch an entertaining work which reflects the same conclusion all the research reaches :

Social media is designed to be addictive and it is harmful (- a conclusion many of you seem to doubt):

Watch for yourself and decide for yourself.

Did you even read the post you're responding to?

Harmful? Yes, that seems to be generally agreed upon. You keep saying the same things (30/50 states, the companies, etc.).

You seem unwilling to engage in any kind of nuanced conversation about how to REDUCE harm. Recognizing that social media is both harmful and fairly unavoidable, what kinds of protective measures do you personally subscribe to for social media and children? Can you be specific about what rules and measures for what ages of child?

I have a first grader and a ninth grader. The ninth grader has Instagram and YouTube but not SnapChat or TikTok.That was a personal decision she and I made together based on my understanding of her use and my experience of these apps. SnapChat does add valuable communication ability but it's basically unaccountable and often used for toxic communication without accountability, so that was a hard no. TikTok is just stupid and I don't support anyone using it or see the value in it. The ones she has are the ones I felt the most safe with her use of. My first grader can watch things on YouTube, on the TV, with supervision. She does not have access to anything that would be considered social media on the iPad she uses.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The anti social media parents are just mad that the rest of us won’t join them in their restrictions on their kids.

That's how some people feel when they believe their children should be restricted from something -- everyone should be restricted, some because they think they have the moral high ground and others because it make their parenting job easier. This goes for each form of social media, drinking and smoking, book banning, dating, abortion, teen parties, etc.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The anti social media parents are just mad that the rest of us won’t join them in their restrictions on their kids.

That's how some people feel when they believe their children should be restricted from something -- everyone should be restricted, some because they think they have the moral high ground and others because it make their parenting job easier. This goes for each form of social media, drinking and smoking, book banning, dating, abortion, teen parties, etc.

Not really. I just lose respect for parents who refuse to set any limits on their kids or tell them no. Then I have to work pretty hard not to roll my eyes when they foam at the mouth about "safety," after giving their kids full social media access at age 11.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The anti social media parents are just mad that the rest of us won’t join them in their restrictions on their kids.

That's how some people feel when they believe their children should be restricted from something -- everyone should be restricted, some because they think they have the moral high ground and others because it make their parenting job easier. This goes for each form of social media, drinking and smoking, book banning, dating, abortion, teen parties, etc.

Not really. I just lose respect for parents who refuse to set any limits on their kids or tell them no. Then I have to work pretty hard not to roll my eyes when they foam at the mouth about "safety," after giving their kids full social media access at age 11.

I think it's just harder for you to manage your kids if our kids are allowed to do things you don't let your kids do. But that's life.

I had a mom in 7th and 8th grade calling me to find out what the kids were doing this weekend because she didn't want her child to have a phone that young. Well too bad hon, they are in a group text and they have already solidified plans and I can't be your go between.

You deal with the negative parts that come with your decision and i'll deal with mine.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The anti social media parents are just mad that the rest of us won’t join them in their restrictions on their kids.

That's how some people feel when they believe their children should be restricted from something -- everyone should be restricted, some because they think they have the moral high ground and others because it make their parenting job easier. This goes for each form of social media, drinking and smoking, book banning, dating, abortion, teen parties, etc.

Not really. I just lose respect for parents who refuse to set any limits on their kids or tell them no. Then I have to work pretty hard not to roll my eyes when they foam at the mouth about "safety," after giving their kids full social media access at age 11.

I think it's just harder for you to manage your kids if our kids are allowed to do things you don't let your kids do. But that's life.

I had a mom in 7th and 8th grade calling me to find out what the kids were doing this weekend because she didn't want her child to have a phone that young. Well too bad hon, they are in a group text and they have already solidified plans and I can't be your go between.

You deal with the negative parts that come with your decision and i'll deal with mine.

Yep. I don’t care if you want to say no to social media but I just don’t understand the parents that won’t allow their MS and HS kids texting capability.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The anti social media parents are just mad that the rest of us won’t join them in their restrictions on their kids.

That's how some people feel when they believe their children should be restricted from something -- everyone should be restricted, some because they think they have the moral high ground and others because it make their parenting job easier. This goes for each form of social media, drinking and smoking, book banning, dating, abortion, teen parties, etc.

Not really. I just lose respect for parents who refuse to set any limits on their kids or tell them no. Then I have to work pretty hard not to roll my eyes when they foam at the mouth about "safety," after giving their kids full social media access at age 11.

I think it's just harder for you to manage your kids if our kids are allowed to do things you don't let your kids do. But that's life.

I had a mom in 7th and 8th grade calling me to find out what the kids were doing this weekend because she didn't want her child to have a phone that young. Well too bad hon, they are in a group text and they have already solidified plans and I can't be your go between.

You deal with the negative parts that come with your decision and i'll deal with mine.

Anyone trying to hold out til 8th grade but thinking of caving in hopes it might help their kid’s social life, remember your kid might end up in group chats with this lady’s kid. I’m sure her kid is super nice and totally would’ve included the other kid, if only they had a phone.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The anti social media parents are just mad that the rest of us won’t join them in their restrictions on their kids.

That's how some people feel when they believe their children should be restricted from something -- everyone should be restricted, some because they think they have the moral high ground and others because it make their parenting job easier. This goes for each form of social media, drinking and smoking, book banning, dating, abortion, teen parties, etc.

Not really. I just lose respect for parents who refuse to set any limits on their kids or tell them no. Then I have to work pretty hard not to roll my eyes when they foam at the mouth about "safety," after giving their kids full social media access at age 11.

I think it's just harder for you to manage your kids if our kids are allowed to do things you don't let your kids do. But that's life.

I had a mom in 7th and 8th grade calling me to find out what the kids were doing this weekend because she didn't want her child to have a phone that young. Well too bad hon, they are in a group text and they have already solidified plans and I can't be your go between.

You deal with the negative parts that come with your decision and i'll deal with mine.

Anyone trying to hold out til 8th grade but thinking of caving in hopes it might help their kid’s social life, remember your kid might end up in group chats with this lady’s kid. I’m sure her kid is super nice and totally would’ve included the other kid, if only they had a phone.

He would have included him if he called the house phone too.

But the reality is I can’t be the go between for your kid in middle school because you don’t have phone privileges.

This is how kids communicate. Like it or not.