https://www.nytimes.com/2023/07/11/opinion/spencer-cox-social-media-utah.html

“How much should 14-year-olds be on their phones? The effects of phones and social media on teenagers — and adults — continues to be at the center of public health, tech, civil liberties and more.

In March, Utah’s Republican governor, Spencer Cox, signed an extensive package of laws intended to limit kids’ access to social media platforms, including time restrictions and requirements that parents and guardians have access to private messages and posts. On Sunday, he said that Utah “in the coming months” would file lawsuits to hold tech companies accountable.

Utah’s laws were among the first in a tranche of actions by state governments, like those of Montana and Louisiana, which have greatly limited access to certain social media platforms like TikTok and Instagram, either for minors or all users. Some researchers have alleged that social media is responsible for increases in anxiety and depression. “If this was childhood cancer or childhood car accidents, or if we had seen these significant changes anywhere else, we would all be losing our minds about this,” he told me.

The legislation is already facing legal challenges, as tech groups and libertarians balk at how involved the government will be in verifying users’ ages. But the governor told me he wasn’t worried. When I asked if he had any hesitations about the bills he said simply, “uh, no.”

Jane Coaston: Utah has passed legislation that would bar people under the age of 18 from having social media accounts without the explicit consent of a parent or guardian, create a social media curfew of sorts, and give Utah parents and guardians access to the children’s posts and private messages. Why this legislation, and why now?

Gov. Spencer Cox: There’s a couple of reasons. Look, we’ve talked to mental health professionals across the state and across the country. We’ve looked extensively at the research. We’ve done our homework on this one. We’ve spent time with parents and children, all across the state, and there is a general consensus and acknowledgment that social media and access to these devices is causing harm. Significant harm.

If you look at the increased rates of depression, anxiety, self-harm since about 2012, across the board but especially with young women, we have just seen exponential increases in those mental health concerns. Again, the research is telling us over and over and over again that it is not just correlated, but it’s being caused, at least in part, by the social media platforms.

[The C.D.C. found that in 2021, nearly three in five adolescent girls felt “persistent sadness” and one in three girls had seriously contemplated suicide. The rates of mental health issues reported has increased with every report since 2011.]

So we felt like we need to do something. If this was happening anywhere else, if this was childhood cancer or childhood car accidents, or if we had seen these significant changes anywhere else, we would, I think, all be losing our minds about this.

The second part of your question is, why now? And I think the better question is, why didn’t we do this four or five years ago? Now because it’s sooner than tomorrow.“

Coaston: Last April you shared an article by Jonathan Haidt on Twitter, titled online “Why the Past 10 Years of American Life Have Been Uniquely Stupid,” and it’s about social media. And you said of the article, “if I could convince every elected official, every voter, every citizen to read one thing today, it would be this.” That leads me to think that your concerns about social media aren’t just about kids. Is that true?

Cox: That is absolutely true, yes.

Coaston: Is this about the types of platforms? Are these concerns about specific tech? Or something broader about social media, what these platforms mean now?

Cox: I think it’s all of those things. I do think it’s important though to separate them. And I think the answers to the problems that we’re facing are maybe different for the problem and the person.

Again, we have a longstanding tradition in our country of drawing lines around ages for brain development when it comes to certain activities. We don’t let kids smoke or drink or drive a car before certain ages, because we know the danger and the damage that is being done there, and the science will back that up.

If I could wave the magic wand and have all adults spend less time on these devices, social media platforms, I would love to be able to do that. But that isn’t something I could do. It’s not something I’m comfortable doing, and it’s not something that sits nicely within the general legal tradition of our country.

Coaston: Clearly parents could do this without the state getting involved. What are parents not doing that necessitates the state acting in their stead, or augmenting parents?

Cox: We talked to parents, including parents who are in this space. Parents who are psychiatrists, parents who deal with this every day. And what they’re saying is “we need help.” Even the parents who are the most engaged are desperate for some help, because of the other cultural forces that are just pushing this and making it so very difficult to deal with.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++

I don’t disagree with Gov. Cox or Jonathan Haight, that smart phones are making us stupid, depressed and suicidal, and social media algorithms are especially tough on girls, but I’m pretty sure kids these days know how to get around government censure. I don’t know that there is a good answer, but I doubt Big Brother watching over you is better than parents parenting.

I have no idea how UT can enforce this. UT and the US Govt can't even control drugs, guns and porn. Well, you might as well throw in pre-martial sex...

Easy to make the smart phone, etc., the babysitter and it is easy to do when you get exhausted as a parent, etc. I worked evenings when my twins were a year. Husband would tend them the evenings I worked and I'd get home at 2 a.m. or so. And the twins would be up EARLY. I'd put in a video and give myself some more time.

I'm glad that phones weren't available when my kids were younger. I'd have a really hard time controlling their time on them. I hate the cell phones just personally. I only use it for calls and to have it in case I have a flat tire or I throw a rod (which I have done) or total my car (which I have done).

Everyone around me except my son is on their phone all the time.

I think we shouldn’t call them phones because that’s not even close to accurate. They are handheld computers. Screen time need not be seen as mostly bad. I’m fluent in Spanish today primarily because of lots of screen time. Also my German level is approaching near native because of screen time.

unconventionalideas Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I think we shouldn’t call them phones because
> that’s not even close to accurate. They are
> handheld computers.

They are appendages to our brains. We are now cyborgs.

> Screen time need not be seen
> as mostly bad. I’m fluent in Spanish today
> primarily because of lots of screen time. Also my
> German level is approaching near native because of
> screen time.

I agree they can be used for good, but like Cox said, every hour we spend on social media, is an hour we didn’t spend interacting face to face or doing something productive.

Of course the same thing could be said of watching TV or any other leisure time activity. Maybe we just have too much leisure time on our hands and not nearly enough productive time.

  
  

On this one I would agree with Cox. Normally you would see it at the parental level, but when it comes to cell phones and social media, many parents are just as bad if not worse. Everyday I watch cars passing me at 90 to 100 MPH with someone staring at their cell phone.

Everybody who says that Government should not be involved is correct. But unfortunately, many parents are checked out on the dangers of Social Media and over use of cell phones. So Cox is stepping in on this one, which is a bold move.

I also agree that social media is a cancer, and to be honest I would ban the whole damn platform. I have seen its destructive effect on my youngest child, and I banned social media in the house while she was with us. However, since her moving out the various platforms has caused her massive psychological damage. I cannot convince her that people who she had never met in person are not her best friends. One of them sexually assaulted her, and she cannot figure out why? That one, I had to send two police cars and 4 uniformed officers to stand between him and her, to get her out of his apartment and back home to safety. In less than 6 months she was back out there again, getting into vehicles of people she met on the various Social Media platforms, saying they are her friends.

Cox will not succeed. He cannot succeed either technologically or constitutionally.

This is 90% political theater.

For the most part I agree.

It will probably play out like the porn law. If the website detects a Utah associated IP number you get shunted into a verification section. It would probably be some kind of verification by association. A long-term or photo ID verified adult account from the same IP would authenticate the minors account from the same IP.

What any of this essentially does is create a bounty of "verified" data for corporations to use in advertising and targeted marketing. As a side effect, it creates a deep log of data that law enforcement and governments can access by warrant or security letter to go on fishing expeditions without having to do the spying themselves. It is my opinion that the contents of this paragraph are the real reason these kinds of laws get so much support from government.

But the savvy kids will just use the free VPNs and bypass all of the nonsense Utah law would require.

I hate social media and what they have done to our politics--functioning as extensions of various troll farms--and what they have done to our children. In fact, I worry constantly about the interface between the internet and AI on the one hand and society on the other.

But for reasons you adumbrate, no state governor can do what Cox suggests. And he knows it.

Unicorns and lollipops.

Maybe so, but think of all the taxpayer money he can spend trying!

If you look at the thread I posted on the Supreme Court viewing stalking as a free speech right and an earlier decision against a French family who accused Facebook of sending posts that caused their son to commit suicide, it is very clear that should the state of Utah file a case supporting its state law and should that case make it all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, that law would most likely be thrown out based on First Amendment violations. And, in this case, I would agree with the High Court. State governments should not be telling people what can or can't view online, regardless of the possible consequences.

If they're going to ban books from public libraries, then they need access to the internet.

Pick one.

You can't control the information young people have access to. You shouldn't. A lot of the younger generation are so perceptive nowadays of what abuse looks like, what they're feeling inside, and being able to identify injustice in the world. The stories about breaking generational cycles really resonates with them. I think their access to information and having an anonymous voice is part of that empowerment.

Is social media harmful? Is being treated as a commodity and being in constant consumer competition harmful? Yeah. For everyone. Kids are getting an early dose of that. I am hoping as this upcoming generation grows into adulthood, instead of censoring people, they'll realize that everything being profit driven is what's truly harmful. To people. To the planet.

For those of you who want to read Jonathan Haight’s article “Why the Past 10yrs of American Life Have Been So Stupid” w/o an Atlantic subscription, https://www.tcatitans.org/cms/lib/CO50010872/Centricity//Domain/63/Haidt%20-%202022%20-%20Why%20the%20Past%2010%20Years%20of%20American%20Life%20Have%20Been%20Uniquely%20Stupid%20-%20The%20Atlantic.pdf



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/11/2023 12:35PM by schrodingerscat.

I was reading the original Post and the line "Even the parents who are the most engaged are desperate for some help" caught my eye.

What help are these "engaged" parents looking for? If there was some kind of help, how is is applied and by whom? How about everybody praying for help?

moehoward Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I was reading the original Post and the line "Even
> the parents who are the most engaged are desperate
> for some help" caught my eye.
>
> What help are these "engaged" parents looking for?
> If there was some kind of help, how is is applied
> and by whom? How about everybody praying for help?

I had four kids and it was impossible 20 yrs ago to monitor their internet use prior to smartphones. My oldest, who was constantly surfing porn and downloading movies told me he downloaded every movie and song he liked from Pirate Bay. I tried it once and got a call the next day from my ISP saying they got a call from the distributors attorneys who were not happy about me downloading their movie and next time I did that they’d kick me off of their ISP. I told my Son who said,”That’s because you are an idiot Dad! I change my VPN every 10 seconds.”
I said, ”Oh thanks for telling me that before I got busted!”
I never downloaded another movie or song again after that.

This. ^^^ x100%

Along with others on this thread, I share skepticism about how this could be accomplished.

But I also share the concern about how social media is harming pre-teens and teens. I personally think that Tik-Tok and Snapchat are the two worst offenders. I'm sure that all of you have at least heard about the absurd Tik-Tok "challenges" that seem designed to endanger youth (i.e. the "challenge" to eat Tide detergent pods.) There is no shortage of those "challenges!" Also a lot of bullying happens via social media. Illegal drug distribution is a problem as well. It only takes a very, very small amount of fentanyl to kill, and teens are ordering "diet" pills and "focusing" pills via social media that contain all sorts of dubious ingredients. I lurk on a nurse's forum, and ER nurses talk about how their two biggest headaches at present for drug overdoses are fentanyl and meth. There are others of course, but nationwide, those two are the worst from what they are saying.

And don't get me started about how smart phones are a huge distraction in schools.

If I were a parent, I would not allow my teen on social media until they were 16 or 17, and I would treat it as seriously as you treat a teen learning how to drive. And I would give them a flip phone until the same age.

People are just assumed to have one.

So about the best you could do is to have your child's phone strictly monitored.

anybody Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> People are just assumed to have one.
>
> So about the best you could do is to have your
> child's phone strictly monitored.

People are assumed to have shoes.
Assumptions are never good

In most cases, the phones are really not needed for kids. My generation survived just fine not bringing cell phones to school. We still do it the old fashioned way in my building -- a parent comes to the office, the office calls or pages the teacher, and the child is sent to see the parent. Or, the parent calls the office, and a message is passed along to the teacher, and then the student.

IMO, if you want your child to have a phone, a simple flip phone will suffice. Smart phones should be only for older kids who can be fully trusted to shut the phone off during class time.

I think we should limit kids access to bishops and priests.

I love to laugh at politicians when they grill tech CEOs in Congressional hearings. They have no idea what they're talking about.

That means they have no idea what a VPN is.

Hopefully, it stays that way.

Yes, we should, just as we should limit TV & movies on behalf of our children's well-being.

Just bc it's technology doesn't absolve parents of their responsibility to point our children to grow up to be effective, caring & loving engaged with society & other individuals.

18

>but like Cox said, every hour we spend on social media, is an hour we didn’t spend interacting face to face or doing something productive.

Exactly the same thing can be said about books, and books have no direct interaction with others. There is plenty of interaction on social media, even if it is not quite real-time interaction.

In any case, we don't get all pearl-clutchy about kids reading books. In fact, we encourage it. What's the difference?

I think the amount of reading kids do now is vastly greater than what was the case when I was a kid (1950s). I wouldn't be surprised if smart phones have not increased the amount of literacy in the world just so kids can keep up on texting and social media.

When I was young, most people did not know how to type, or had the qwerty keyboard committed to memory. Typewriters were the size and weight of a frozen turkey. In the case of office typewriters, the size and weight of a large frozen turkey.

I feel the opposite, that I did more high-quality reading before the internet came along, in the form of novels, nonfiction texts, newspapers, and magazines. I read a lot on the web nowadays, but for the most part, it's just what other ordinary folks write.

summer Wrote:
----------------------------------
> I read a lot on the web nowadays,
> but for the most part, it's just
> what other ordinary folks write.

I'm sure I'm not the only one who was deeply wounded by these cruel and hurtful words!!

I completely admire your use of adjectives, EOD. Carry on! :o)

There are a lot of things people might want to limit for their kids:

How much time they should be in the sun
How much sugar they eat
How much TV they watch
How late they can stay up at night
How much time alone they spend with their priest getting indoctrinated (j/k sort of)
How much time they play video games
How much time they spend on their phones
What books they read
What movies they watch
On and on

These are choices parents should own, instead of imposing their rules on everyone else. I don't want some white shirted politician sitting in my house monitoring everything.

The problem is, a lot of parents cannot be trusted to make reasonable decisions for their children. Other parents can't be trusted to stop telling others what to do. So IOW, I don't have any solutions.

Guidelines are helpful. The way they are enforced might not be helpful.

The problem with smart phones in schools is that the phones are actively interfering with the educational process at the secondary level. At the elementary level, the phones are just an occasional annoyance.

Some high schools have robust cell phone policies that are enforced (i.e. students turn off the phones and put them in a pocket or cubby as they enter class.) In many schools, the policies are not enforced because the powerful parents complain too much.

When that's the case, they just need to stop holding teachers accountable for student performance. My colleagues simply can't compete with Instagram, Tik-Tok, and Chat GPT.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/19/2023 10:26AM by summer.

One more rant -- the public schools U.S. need to stop coddling parents. If their children get bad (but entirely deserved) grades, the parents complain. Johnny doesn't have access to his cell phone 24/7? Complain. He punches a hole in the bathroom wall? He was having a bad day, and no, a suspension is not at all acceptable. Throw him off the sports team? Not happening.

So here's my solution: Kids don't get a high school diploma unless they score 60% or better on a standardized test in English, Math, and Science/Government/Geography. Yes, that punishes the children who don't test well. But that's what we're coming down to. If the kids can't pass the test, give them a certificate of high school completion. But if you want to graduate, you have to show that you've learned something. And the parents can't protest test scores.

If little Johnny sits on his cell phone all day long, he gets what he gets.

Like Professor Glen Lowrey has said about his economics students,”They think they are clever using ChatGPT4 to write their papers, little do they know, I’m using ChatGPT4 to grade their papers, haha”
Wait’ll ChatGPT5 comes along and makes us all obsolete!

Secondary teachers are still puzzling out how to deal with Chat GPT. There are some legitimate uses for it on the teacher end of things. Some English teachers are making their students do all their writing in-class using old-fashioned paper and pencil.

Wow, not clay tablets?
It’d suuuuck so hard being an English teacher having to grade all those papers you know are being authored by AI but how can you prove it?
My wife writes an article for her work every week and uses ChatGPT to do it, then tells ChatGPT to make it more succinct and it does it all. She barely has to touch it afterwards.
It does what used to take her hours in only seconds.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/19/2023 05:03PM by schrodingerscat.

There are other programs that can detect AI-assisted writing. University teachers use them, and secondary teachers can as well. But given the workload for public school teachers, sometimes it's just easier to circumvent the AI.

schrodingerscat Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Wow, not clay tablets?
> It’d suuuuck so hard being an English teacher
> having to grade all those papers you know are
> being authored by AI but how can you prove it?
> My wife writes an article for her work every week
> and uses ChatGPT to do it, then tells ChatGPT to
> make it more succinct and it does it all. She
> barely has to touch it afterwards.
> It does what used to take her hours in only
> seconds.

I'm a bit of a fan of kids first learning how to spell and write for themselves. Then they can use aids but still know the basics themselves so they can (1) correct the artificial helper as needed and (2) fend for themselves when the power goes out.

OK, so #2 is a bit of a (silly) joke but why would we want machines to know language and math et al better than our own brains can manage?

Don't we want to stay the boss of things?

Surely having a program write essays etc for us robs us of the chance to express ourselves using our own creative powers.

And if machines can do it all for children and we think that's an OK way to teach them why do they need to attend school at all?

We could phase out teachers altogether and save a ton of money.

But then what are we teaching our kids? And who is teaching them?

As for adults using a program to do their work for them, what if bosses decide they don't want to pay people any more if they can just tell a machine to perform the same function, and reportedly better or at least faster and in the long run more cheaply. They could save all that money they currently dole out to humans. Originality and creativity may die but will anybody care?

I guess it depends on what one values.

I don't think we understand all of the implications of AI yet.

Many teachers do not enjoy teaching writing, because it is difficult and labor intensive if you do it the right way. I enjoy teaching it, but I am unusual in that regard.

Right, we can’t possibly understand the implications of creating something more intelligent than us. But logically, it seems like a more intelligent General AI would look at our current state of affairs, perpetual war, man made environmental destruction, mass extinction of other species, and it’d quickly reach the logical conclusion that humans are a net negative effect on most other life forms and it would destroy us, in the interest of maintaining the genetic biodiversity of life on Earth.

Nightingale wrote in part:

"OK, so #2 is a bit of a (silly) joke but why would we want machines to know language and math et al better than our own brains can manage?"

I can't speak on the language issue, but we have had calculators handling much of our math now since at least the 1960s. The big advantage is that both calculators and computers can handle much larger numbers than we humans can with our own brains, and that in turn has helped scientists in many areas, especially with calculating distances in both outer (where the numbers are very large) and inner (where the numbers are very small) space.

Also, while initially teachers opposed students using calculators in the classroom, now they are used with much regularity, and there seem to be much fewer problems with kids using them in class. There are still parts of tests, both standardized and not, where calculators aren't allowed, but those parts are much smaller than when I was attending school back in the 1970s and 1980s.

What the issues with calculators have taught me is that when rapid changes occur, hold on to your horses--eventually things will sort themselves out, and I predict the same will happen with the development of AI.

Good points, blindguy. I guess I was thinking, and maybe didn't explain it well, as I was rushing, that first we learned numbers and basic arithmetic and then we used calculators. The effect was that at least we understood basic concepts. It sounds to me that now at least some people think we should skip the first part where humans learn the basic concepts first.

I value people comprehending basics with their own brains and only using machines for convenience not to replace our own little grey cells.

But I guess that's how the world is headed and it could be a natural and inevitable progression.

I'm not saying we should hold back on advancement.

Then again, it may be a case of science fiction coming true.

I guess we'll see.

And maybe if eventually a kid can't spell or count it won't matter? But so far in history we've kind of made those basics a bit of a big deal.

First off, I also agree that teaching students to write by hand and take notes on paper works. Of course, that could just be how my brain works; I find if I write something down on paper, I remember it better. Though I think the complaints about cursive in school is an over-reaction; I wish schools taught a little more about calligraphy instead of just block letters or cursive. Reason: my handwriting in both cursive and block letters is awful.

Maybe one of the reasons is that I have to focus on the lecture while writing in block letters for a refence I can read later is why pen and paper works for me.

As an English major, I oppose AI art and using ChatGPT to write. You trying to put artists and writers out of work?! If so, why?

Plus, from a layman (moron)'s view of AI, doesn't it need input to make calculations and decisions to work something out? And if the AI is using human input, how does that affect how humans communicate and create art? Would we be doing it for humanities or just to supply a machine?

Of course, I also oppose AI works as part of my broader agenda of "Keep the Human Race Weird!"

And summer would be happy to know I was one of the weird kids who loved learning to write. To my young brain, books were magic and writing was working it. I still say writing can work magic if done right.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/19/2023 07:36PM by ookami.

ookami Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I still say writing can work magic if
> done right.

Absolutely. I frequently swoon over the magic created by good writers of the many books I and family consume monthly.

If a sentence is woven in especially remarkable fashion I actually have to write it down.

It would be disappointing to learn that a machine did that.

Nightingale Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> If a sentence is woven in especially remarkable
> fashion I actually have to write it down.
>

I've read a few sentences like that.

> It would be disappointing to learn that a machine
> did that.

If it were a work the AI wrote on its own instead of being programmed to, I would be interested in reading that work. I thought that a book from a machine built to do something else would be a greater indication of sentience in an Artificial Intelligence.

Instead, we get mimics with the backing of rich tossers.

ookami Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Instead, we get mimics with the backing of rich
> tossers.

I admire your British turn of phrase. :)

I always thought tosser was a good term for someone with more ego than brains or ability and am a little disappointed I don't know a Yank equivalent, at least one I can say in front of polite company.

The only downside is that saying "tosser" in an Idaho accent makes one sound a bit like a tosser.

ookami Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The only downside is that saying "tosser" in an
> Idaho accent makes one sound a bit like a tosser.

How does an Idahoan say it? (I'm not familiar with that accent).

I grew up in southeast Idaho and "tosser" sounds like a soft "tah-ser."

I live in Pullman, Washington which is across the state border from "Mah-scow" Idaho.

I call the ditch by the side of the road "the borrow pit."

One bar snack I recommend in Idaho is "finger steaks," steak cut into strips and deep-fried. Goes well with "frah sauce," a mix of ketchup and mayonnaise. Goes well with fries too.

I pronounce "Boise" with an "S" sound, just like it's spelled.

The words of fictional character Rancid Crabtree, a mountain man in the work of Patrick F. McManus, reads similar to how my grandparents spoke. I don't sound like that, "Whell Ah don't thinks Ah does."

The general impression when folks hear an Idaho drawl is that you grew up rural and aren't too bright. I resent that on the grounds I grew up in a part of Idaho where we had a well-funded public library and a dairy with the cows on site. Plus, I grew up near the research facility that built the reactor for the USS Nautilus, the US Navy's first nuclear powered submarine. Yes, it was named after the submarine from "20,000 Leagues Under the Sea."



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/19/2023 10:49PM by ookami.

> I still say writing can work magic if
> done right.

Unfortunately, the sinister EOD always writes left.

Maybe he writes ambidextrous?

I've only seen him write left-handedly and with crayon.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/19/2023 09:03PM by Lot's Wife.

ISN'T THAT A DECISION BEST LEFT UP TO THE PARENTS???? LIKE ACCESS TO FIREARMS???? THE HYPOCRISY STAGGERS ME!!!!!!!

Right-wingers are adamantly opposed to governmental intrusions into people's lives and accordingly want to minimize state power.

Until, that is, they win elections.

slskipper Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> ISN'T THAT A DECISION BEST LEFT UP TO THE
> PARENTS???? LIKE ACCESS TO FIREARMS???? THE
> HYPOCRISY STAGGERS ME!!!!!!!


the U.S. Constitution doesn't make any distinction between 'adults' and children / minors;

I'm fearing the day when a minor goes to court to appeal a local law or decision barring possession of firearms / weapons; Who Knows what decision the USSC would dream up & issue...



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/19/2023 09:30PM by GNPE.

I agree.