A Deeper Look At The Surgeon General’s Report On Kids & Social Media: It’s Not What You Heard

Studies

from the we-have-no-evidence,-so-let's-freak-out dept

We had just recently written about the American Psychological Association’s very thorough and detailed report going through much of the research about the impact of social media on the mental health of kids. That report was careful, and nuanced, and basically said that there is little evidence that social media is inherently bad for kids. It noted that studies suggested social media actually seems to be beneficial for many kids, and in the cases where it’s harmful, there are often other, extenuating circumstances. It had many recommendations, focused mainly on better educating children about how to use social media appropriately, rather than any sort of moral panic about it (of course, as we noted, the media still misrepresented the study and claimed it “warned of social media’s potential harm to kids.”)

A few months ago, we also wrote about the giant Pew study on teens and social media, which further found that most teens get real value out of social media, and only a really small percentage of them struggled with social media.

It was nice to see these reports and their thorough, detailed findings, as they pushed back on the growing moral panic that is enveloping much of the media and the political world regarding social media and kids.

So I was curious earlier this week when Surgeon General, Vivek Murthy, released his Social Media and Youth Mental Health report. Nearly all the reporting I saw on it suggested that it was like the opposite of the APA release, and that it talked up how social media was absolutely putting kids at risk and something needed to be done.

But… that’s not exactly what the report says.

Indeed, somewhat bizarrely, it reads kinda like the off-brand version of the APA report, with fewer details, less nuance, and a less clear plan. It cites some of the same studies.

Like the APA report, it also says the evidence of a causal impact is lacking, and (like the APA report) it says that it appears social media is good for some and not good for others. Like the APA report, it clearly lays out the benefits of social media for kids:

Social media can provide benefits for some youth by providing positive community and connection with others who share identities, abilities, and interests. It can provide access to important information and create a space for self-expression. The ability to form and maintain friendships online and develop social connections are among the positive effects of social media use for youth. , These relationships can afford opportunities to have positive interactions with more diverse peer groups than are available to them offline and can provide important social support to youth. The buffering effects against stress that online social support from peers may provide can be especially important for youth who are often marginalized, including racial, ethnic, and sexual and gender minorities. , For example, studies have shown that social media may support the mental health and well-being of lesbian, gay, bisexual, asexual, transgender, queer, intersex and other youths by enabling peer connection, identity development and management, and social support. Seven out of ten adolescent girls of color report encountering positive or identity-affirming content related to race across social media platforms. A majority of adolescents report that social media helps them feel more accepted (58%), like they have people who can support them through tough times (67%), like they have a place to show their creative side (71%), and more connected to what’s going on in their friends’ lives (80%). In addition, research suggests that social media-based and other digitally-based mental health interventions may also be helpful for some children and adolescents by promoting help-seeking behaviors and serving as a gateway to initiating mental health care.

Then it also notes that for some, it might be negative. The same thing Pew and the APA report said. But even there, the report notes that there isn’t necessarily any evidence of a causal link, just “reasons for concern about the potential negative impact.”

And, even there, it looks like Murthy is doing some cherry-picking in how the data is presented. It quotes the Pew study (which again, focused on how only a small percentage of teens had negative experiences with social media, and a larger percentage found it helpful), but just to say that more than a third of those aged 13 to 17 use social media “almost constantly.” This “almost constantly” is trotted out frequently (including in school district lawsuits) without putting it into context. First, social media covers lots of tools. Kids use Discord to communicate with each other (and to track predator teachers), which is way different than just staring at images and videos all day. And again, there are lots of things that kids do “almost constantly” — such as attending school — that we don’t consider to be problematic.

The question is whether this usage is a problem or not, and all of these reports are saying that for most kids, the answer is no. For a very small percentage, however, there are real risks. And efforts should be focused on those individuals, rather than taking away all of the benefits that these reports describe social media as providing kids.

And the report then notes that there are many areas where we just don’t have enough information to say one way or another what’s a good approach and what’s bad. That’s also useful, as hopefully it will lead to even more research on this stuff.

Unfortunately, though, after this opening, the report basically says “well, even though we don’t really have enough evidence that social media is bad for kids, and a bunch of evidence of how it’s good, we should stop kids from using it just in case it turns out to be bad.” Which is… a really weird takeaway, unless, you are writing to a foregone conclusion that the details of your report don’t actually support:

Our children and adolescents don’t have the luxury of waiting years until we know the full extent of social media’s impact. Their childhoods and development are happening now. While social media use can have positive impacts for some children, the evidence noted throughout this Surgeon General’s Advisory necessitates significant concern with the way it is currently designed, deployed, and utilized. Child and adolescent use of platforms designed for adults places them at high risk of “unsupervised, developmentally inappropriate, and potentially harmful” use according to the National Scientific Council on Adolescence. At a moment when we are experiencing a national youth mental health crisis, now is the time to act swiftly and decisively to protect children and adolescents from risk of harm.

It is difficult to see how you get to this paragraph and think it makes any sense given all of the other statements. It’s like saying: “Cars are beneficial to people because they help people traverse long distances which has many benefits. Cars are also dangerous because they can crash and kill people. So, while there are benefits and negatives, we have to ban all cars to stop the negatives.”

Life is about tradeoffs. This report highlights all the tradeoffs… and then throws them in the garbage to say “but we can’t worry about the benefits, we just need to focus on stopping the negatives.”

The actual recommendations in the report are a little better, but it includes very dangerous suggestions like age verification (which is a privacy nightmare). It does (like the APA report) talk about how parents have to take on responsibility for educating their kids on the proper use of social media, and how more tools should be provided to them. Those are perfectly good suggestions.

But, of course, with the framing of “we must protect the children” the media had a fucking field say with the report, highlighting only the claims of the harms to children, and totally ignoring how much of the report actually talks about the benefits.

So, uh, yeah. The report says that there are clear benefits, that there may be some risks, but that the research isn’t really there to prove it, and then has a little moral panic saying we need to overprotect before we know what’s happening for sure, and every news org runs with the scare tactic headline.

If it bleeds, it leads, I guess.

Of course, as a separate NY Times article highlights, these Surgeon General advisories have happened a bunch of times over the past few decades, some for good causes, and some have marked real turning points, such as around smoking and drunk driving. However, it also details some pretty embarrassing ones that were total jokes, such as the attempts by Surgeon Generals to insist that TV and video games were damaging to children, both of which were later debunked as moral panics.

What’s almost hilarious is that the 1972 report on the negative effects of TV has many similarities to this new report. It kicks off saying this:

But then immediately says “nevertheless” and immediately just starts listing out studies that claim that watching TV leads to aggression.

So, just like this latest study, there are nods towards the more nuanced position, but then that just gets bowled over by the “but moral panic and fear” part.

Maybe the next Surgeon General can issue an advisory on the impact of moral panics.

Filed Under: kids, kids and social media, moral panic, research, social media, surgeon general, teens, vivek murthy

Angry Anti-Masker Sues Joe Biden, Facebook, And Twitter Because His Social Media Was Taken Down For Disinfo

Content Moderation

from the you-can't-be-serious dept

Another day, another truly silly lawsuit. The “Liberty Justice Center” and the Tyler & Bursch law firm — both of which seem to specialize in filing ridiculous lawsuits — have now filed a lawsuit on behalf of a disinformation-spewing anti-masker against Joe Biden, Surgeon General Vivek Murthy, Facebook, and Twitter… because Facebook and Twitter locked his account after he posted an image claiming (incorrectly) that “masking children is impractical and not backed by research or real world data.”

The image, which you can find in the lawsuit, but which I will not post here, posts some stuff that is true but uninteresting (such as the fact that sometimes people wear masks improperly) with stuff that is out of context and misleading (such as that studies don’t have conclusive answers yet about the effectiveness of masks for kids) to try to make a claim that masking kids is a bad idea. But, like so much misinformation, it’s telling a story by cherry-picking a few points out of context. Actual credible sources have broken down why these claims — repeated frequently by anti-maskers — are basically bullshit. Yes, there remain some unknown things and inconclusive science (though the blanks will be filled in soon). But the really “scary” stuff about harming development are mostly bogus. Of course, this is the way most misinformation works: take things out of context that you can point to as true, pool them together with a few other things, slip in a few exaggerations, and claim a big picture, the implications of which are ridiculous and not supported.

That’s what the graphic Justin Hart posted basically did. And, Facebook and Twitter both reasonably felt that it was spreading potentially dangerous misinformation about masks and children. So both services gave him a time-out. Facebook suspended him for three days for violating its community standards. Twitter locked his account for violating its rules.

Hart is suing Biden, Murthy and other government officials on the laughably bogus argument that the account suspensions were ordered by the US government. The argument is that because the White House did use its bully pulpit to get angry at Facebook for leaving up misinformation, that somehow makes the government responsible for the actions against Hart (even though those occurred before the White House statements). As we noted at the time, the White House’s statements were pretty stupid and short sighted. But they did not, in any way, amount to evidence that the White House and social media were colluding to censor people. Indeed, the whole point of the White House’s statements were that Facebook wasn’t taking down accounts.

The claims in the case are, as expected, silly. First you get a state action claim.

Facebook and Twitter engaged in state action when they removed posts like Hart?s at the request of Murthy and Biden based on the viewpoint of those posts.

Facebook and Twitter worked in concert and/or conspiracy with Murthy and Biden to deprive Hart of his First Amendment right to Free Speech.

Murthy and Biden affirmed, authorized, encouraged, and/or facilitated Facebook and Twitter?s unconstitutional conduct of censorship.

Except, that’s not what happened, at all. That’s not how state action doctrine works. This is just silly.

Then, there’s the claim that these companies violated Hart’s free speech rights under the California Constitution. And, because every stupid content moderation lawsuit has to cite Pruneyard, so does this one. As a reminder, Pruneyard is a case about a shopping mall being required to allow speakers on the property, but the ruling and subsequent rulings have narrowed it down to the very, very, very specific circumstances of the Pruneyard Shopping Mall and basically nowhere else.

In Pruneyard Shopping Center, the California Supreme Court recognized that the suburban shopping center?even ones that are privately owned?are an ?essential and invaluable forum for exercising? speech rights. 592 P.2d 341, 347 (Cal. 1979). The court reasoned that shopping centers are where most people ?spend the most significant amount of [their] time in suburban areas where [their] needs and wants are satisfied? because ?shopping centers provide the location, goods, and services to satisfy [their] needs and wants.?

And then the case misleadingly cites the other favorite, Packingham, which is limited to how the government cannot pass a law blocking people from the entire internet and has no impact at all on whether or not an individual service can kick someone off for violating terms.

The U.S. Supreme Court made a similar observation about the internet in Packingham, 137 S. Ct. at 1735. There, the Court compared social media to a ?quintessential forum? for engaging in speech such as ?a street or park.? It further found that the most important forum today for speech is ?cyberspace?the ?vast democratic forums of the Internet? in general . . . and social media in particular.?

And with just those two barebones paragraphs, that ignore the realities of both cases, the lawsuit claims:

Because Facebook and Twitter provide an essential and invaluable forum for exercising Hart?s right to Free Speech under the California Constitution, they violated such right when they removed Hart?s posts and suspended his ability to speak on their platforms

Except, we’ve already done this and it’s not how any of this works. As the 9th Circuit pointed out in the PragerU case:

PragerU?s claim that YouTube censored PragerU?s speech faces a formidable threshold hurdle: YouTube is a private entity. The Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment prohibits the government?not a private party?from abridging speech. See Halleck, 139 S.Ct. at 1928 (the Free Speech Clause ?prohibits only governmental abridgment of speech,? and ?does not prohibit private abridgment of speech?); Hudgens v. NLRB, 424 U.S. 507, 513 (1976) (?the constitutional guarantee of free speech is a guarantee only against abridgment by government, federal or state?). PragerU does not dispute that YouTube is a private entity that operates its platform without any state involvement.

These are not antiquated principles that have lost their vitality in the digital age. In Halleck the Supreme Court considered whether a private entity that operates a public access channel on a cable system is a state actor. 139 S. Ct. at 1926. The plaintiffs tested a theory that resembled PragerU?s approach, claiming that a private entity becomes a state actor through its ?operation? of the private property as ?a public forum for speech.? Id. at 1930. The Court rejected this argument. Such a rule would eviscerate the state action doctrine?s distinction between government and private entities because ?all private property owners and private lessees who open their property for speech would be subject to First Amendment constraints.? Id. at 1930?31. Instead, the Court reaffirmed that ?merely hosting speech by others is not a traditional, exclusive public function and does not alone transform private entities into state actors subject to First Amendment constraints.? Id. at 1930.

Importantly, private property does not ?lose its private character merely because the public is generally invited to use it for designated purposes.? Lloyd Corp. v. Tanner, 407 U.S. 551, 569 (1972). YouTube may be a paradigmatic public square on the Internet, but it is ?not transformed? into a state actor solely by ?provid[ing] a forum for speech.? Halleck, 129 S. Ct. at 1930, 1934.

Notably, the Hart filing does not mention the PragerU ruling. Perhaps because it debunks every argument here.

There is another claim that is even dumber than those first ones. Count IV claims that Facebook and Twitter “committed promissory estoppel by not fulfilling their promise for Hart to use their platform for his business.”

Facebook and Twitter made ?a clear and unambiguous promise? to Hart that he could use their services to communicate and network with other Facebook and Twitter users

Except, no, they didn’t.

Facebook and Twitter did not caveat this promise by announcing that they would censor speech opposing masks.

They absolutely did. Both services include terms of service that Hart agreed to, which make it clear that he can be suspended for violating community standards and terms of service, and may have content removed for basically any reason at all.

I can only imagine that Hart’s very silly lawyers pulled out this laughable argument after looking at the infamous Barnes v. Yahoo ruling, in which someone got around Section 230 because an employee at Yahoo promised to takedown some content. The court basically said that once the company promised to do that, its failure to violated that promise and that took precedence over Section 230. But that was a direct promise from an employee. Hart totally misreading (if he read at all) the terms that he agreed to is not a promise to let him spew misinformation.

There are also the usual padding claims about “negligent interference with a prospective economic advantage” and “intentional interference with a contract” which have no chance. The only claim in the lawsuit that is actually reasonable (though not very interesting) is the claim against two government agencies — Health & Human Services and the Office of Management and Budget — for failing to respond to his FOIA request in the 20 business days required by law. Of course, as we well know, FOIA requests often take years, but you can sue after the 20 days to try to force the issue — so that claim seems to be the sole legit claim here, but the only remedy would be expedited processing of his FOIA request and nothing else.

This lawsuit may be useful for fundraising campaigns and silly pandering about how much of a “victim” Hart is, but it’s not a serious legal complaint and the courts are likely to treat it with exactly the level of respect it deserves.

Filed Under: 1st amendment, common carrier, content moderation, free speech, joe biden, justin hart, promissory estoppel, vivek murthy
Companies: facebook, twitter