Some young people have problems with the Internet. But most seem to thrive on it--at least my own teen boy. He leads an active social life on the screen, and can handle both bullies and disinformation with aplomb. (His reaction to disinformation is very teenager--he laps the stuff up, the better to laugh at it. In heavy sarc font: "Andrew Tate is my hero!")
Apologies for the belated reply, but I hope that this comment finds you still.
Your series here is brilliant. I fully support your working and your findings - especially the need for complex, evidence-based policy making that works (rather than simplistic solutions designed to fail), and our need to lower the voting age.
I also have some comments:
1. My preferred way of thinking about what social media could be is a digital 'public space'. It should be a public square where everyone is welcome, where everyone should be safe, and where we can express ourselves to discover all that we share and hopefully help resolve the things that we disagree upon. That's why I'm fundamentally opposed to the social media ban - we need to ensure our physical and our digital spaces are safe enough for kids - not to exclude kids from spaces that are unsafe for them and unsafe for adults too.
2. It seems that the main problem is that social media in its current form is a profit-seeking venture offered by private platforms. The ideal solution is some kind of open public platform that is designed to serve people's interests rather than profit interests. On this note, I was incredibly impressed by Audrey Tang & Glen Weyl's Address to the National Press Club:
3. The other part of the problem why kids are on their devices so much is that the physical environment isn't safe enough. Our walking to school rates have plummeted, the #1 cause is road traffic safety concerns, and this problem is exacerbated by parents' individualised responses that involve driving kids around more. We need collective solutions instead - making streets safer and healthier for everyone, and especially so that kids can have the rights and the freedoms to move around that older generations of Australians have had. (Declaration: this is in my line of work and advocacy.) A 'healthy streets' policy applied at all levels of government would really help, as would other policies that invite kids to meet up physically more often - free public pools, mountain bike tracks, Scout groups and other such youth clubs, etc.
On images, I've found the images in this series to be quite jarring. (Not just the one in the 3rd article with the phantom hand on the left!) They were jarring because they all portrayed the problem of social media, and yet the problem with the social media *ban* is that it fails to consider the positive aspects of connectivity and expression. So the images of sad teens were all pandering to problem, and that worked against what you were trying to say.
So for feedback, I don't mind real or AI images. Having an image of some kind does help though. The most important thing is that the image is a thought-provoking scene that complements your argument.
Evidence-based policies are essential - to proceed with a policy just because someone thinks it's a good idea reinforces popular overly-simplistic perceptions of a problem, which I see as part of the poison of social media. But in terms of lowering the voting age, I'd be inclined to go the other way, and raise it, given the way in which people vote against the way their own interests, as perceived by themselves. Or the way young men were persuaded in the US election that they are under threat from rising social equality. Perhaps young people under 18 can apply to vote, and if they pass a test demonstrating they understand how the Australian political system operates (a test many of those currently on the electoral roll would fail), they are then given a pass to vote.
Personally, I would prefer you not use AI images, as AI uses much more energy than would a simple search.
On the subject right at the end, I personally prefer the lack of AI-generated images unless they have a specific relevance to the post. In my view, there proliferation on substack is annoying.
Your headline says "Better ways to help young people" but on bullying you offer not a single idea and end with an underwhelming "a lot more could be done." It seems to me that we don't take the bullying issue seriously enough.
Children are killing themselves, others have their confidence destroyed or are left with chronic depression and anxiety. Kids drop out of school and don't reach their potential. If the stuff that happens in schools was happening in workplaces, it would be front page news and warrant a Royal Commission. Even if we don't particularly care about children's welfare, the cost to the taxpayer of the dysfunction that can result from bullying must be huge.
I certainly don't expect you, as an economist, to be able to say anything more substantive than "a lot more could be done." I don't have the answers either but I do urge that the issue be taken much more seriously and that we take off our ideological blinkers in our search for solutions. This shouldn't be a left/right issue.
Spot on re the ban and alternative policies. Re: images, I generally think it is best to use images from the public domain, and there are heaps of great options here: https://www.skeletoncodemachine.com/p/public-domain-art-resources i use these and a combination of my own images (and some cheeky film stills I don't think anyone will object to, though perhaps because I am more of a nobody than you...). But with the public domain art, i often find that looking for an image that complements the post enhances my own thinking in ways I enjoy.
Evidence-based policies are essential - to proceed with a policy just because someone thinks it's a good idea reinforces popular overly-simplistic perceptions of a problem, which I see as part of the poison of social media. But in terms of lowering the voting age, I'd be inclined to go the other way, and raise it, given the way in which people vote against the way their own interests, as perceived by themselves. Or the way young men were persuaded in the US election that they are under threat from rising social equality. Perhaps young people under 18 can apply to vote, and if they pass a test demonstrating they understand how the Australian political system operates (a test many of those currently on the electoral roll would fail), they are then given a pass to vote.
Personally, I would prefer you not use AI images, as AI uses much more energy than would a simple search.
I think it’s a pity you are judging Jonathan Haidt’s work without apparently reading his book. He is a psychologist, and in it he goes through the psychological reasons why social media is so destructive for kids’ development. For one thing, it is highly addictive, and takes them away from face-to-face socialising, real world risk-taking and other challenging experiences, which are needed for the development of their emotional intelligence and self efficacy. It also makes them performative, ie more self conscious and image obsessed, and too easily influenced by malign role models.
Bullying is another factor, which is more easily done on social media, and a group pile-on can be a horrendous experience. Even as an adult I’ve found it highly stressful. I can’t imagine how horrible it would be for a young adolescent, whose self esteem is so tied up with peer approval, and who lacks the emotional resilience to cope with it.
Haidt also links the negative influence of social media with the concurrent rise of parental over-coddling. He says parents over-protect kids in the real world, and under-protect them online.
I’ve certainly noticed the former, which is sad. As a child, I had so much freedom to ride my bike around the streets with my friends, and playgrounds were much more interesting and fun. Our parents just let us do our own thing and didn’t hover over us.
I haven’t finished the book yet, but what I’ve read so far makes a lot of sense, and is heavily backed up with references.
I entirely agree with your point that if children are expected to conform to adult standards of behaviour and suffer adult punishments if they don't, then they should also be granted commensurate adult privileges like voting. Or, more to the point, not have adult level privileges denied. On the images, I don't care whether you use them or not or where they come from. However, I do think images of children should be used with care; the one you used is obviously staged but should not have been made public in my opinion. They may be acting in adult like ways but the are still apprentice adults do need some protection.
Not convinced that AI images are better than stealing directly from human artists. Can you afford a subscription to one of the cheap stock image sites? But I'm not really convinced by decorative images anyway. Graphs and diagrams are great, but if images make the Al Gore Rhythm happy than bang them in.
To be effective the age limit would need to be matched by education, or education and supervision they way we do with alcohol (cf vapes!). Instead we're in the dogs bark stage before the caravan moves on. It will be interesting to see which sites ban Australians, which ignore the law and which stupid verifications are used before being disallowed as ineffective. I do really love the AI version of "I know it when I see it" as a concept though.
On the substance of the post, I'm on board so far. Completely agree a ban is not a solution. Do like the idea of the limited-functionality phones, but implementing that well could be a problem outside the well-resourced private schools such as featured in your link. That's probably where the solution will have to start - hard to see either the current or prospective federal governments in Australia promoting something like that and doing it well.
On the images, option 2. I think images are a good legibility idea to break up the page even if they don't add much to the content, but even better if they add to the theme. If you're going to use images from human artists I think you should worry about copyright issues and make sure you are creditiing the source and not breaking licences. If you find that too burdensome, I'd suggest you are better off using AI to generate themed images. So my response to your poll would be 2, or 3 if you're prepared to do a bit of research on your images.
Some young people have problems with the Internet. But most seem to thrive on it--at least my own teen boy. He leads an active social life on the screen, and can handle both bullies and disinformation with aplomb. (His reaction to disinformation is very teenager--he laps the stuff up, the better to laugh at it. In heavy sarc font: "Andrew Tate is my hero!")
Yes, banning all young people while doing nothing to help those who have serious problems is a really dumb approach.
Hi John,
Apologies for the belated reply, but I hope that this comment finds you still.
Your series here is brilliant. I fully support your working and your findings - especially the need for complex, evidence-based policy making that works (rather than simplistic solutions designed to fail), and our need to lower the voting age.
I also have some comments:
1. My preferred way of thinking about what social media could be is a digital 'public space'. It should be a public square where everyone is welcome, where everyone should be safe, and where we can express ourselves to discover all that we share and hopefully help resolve the things that we disagree upon. That's why I'm fundamentally opposed to the social media ban - we need to ensure our physical and our digital spaces are safe enough for kids - not to exclude kids from spaces that are unsafe for them and unsafe for adults too.
2. It seems that the main problem is that social media in its current form is a profit-seeking venture offered by private platforms. The ideal solution is some kind of open public platform that is designed to serve people's interests rather than profit interests. On this note, I was incredibly impressed by Audrey Tang & Glen Weyl's Address to the National Press Club:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=llCLEddz9E4
3. The other part of the problem why kids are on their devices so much is that the physical environment isn't safe enough. Our walking to school rates have plummeted, the #1 cause is road traffic safety concerns, and this problem is exacerbated by parents' individualised responses that involve driving kids around more. We need collective solutions instead - making streets safer and healthier for everyone, and especially so that kids can have the rights and the freedoms to move around that older generations of Australians have had. (Declaration: this is in my line of work and advocacy.) A 'healthy streets' policy applied at all levels of government would really help, as would other policies that invite kids to meet up physically more often - free public pools, mountain bike tracks, Scout groups and other such youth clubs, etc.
On images, I've found the images in this series to be quite jarring. (Not just the one in the 3rd article with the phantom hand on the left!) They were jarring because they all portrayed the problem of social media, and yet the problem with the social media *ban* is that it fails to consider the positive aspects of connectivity and expression. So the images of sad teens were all pandering to problem, and that worked against what you were trying to say.
So for feedback, I don't mind real or AI images. Having an image of some kind does help though. The most important thing is that the image is a thought-provoking scene that complements your argument.
I'm writing about the need for a public platform write now. Watch this space./
Evidence-based policies are essential - to proceed with a policy just because someone thinks it's a good idea reinforces popular overly-simplistic perceptions of a problem, which I see as part of the poison of social media. But in terms of lowering the voting age, I'd be inclined to go the other way, and raise it, given the way in which people vote against the way their own interests, as perceived by themselves. Or the way young men were persuaded in the US election that they are under threat from rising social equality. Perhaps young people under 18 can apply to vote, and if they pass a test demonstrating they understand how the Australian political system operates (a test many of those currently on the electoral roll would fail), they are then given a pass to vote.
Personally, I would prefer you not use AI images, as AI uses much more energy than would a simple search.
On the subject right at the end, I personally prefer the lack of AI-generated images unless they have a specific relevance to the post. In my view, there proliferation on substack is annoying.
Your headline says "Better ways to help young people" but on bullying you offer not a single idea and end with an underwhelming "a lot more could be done." It seems to me that we don't take the bullying issue seriously enough.
Children are killing themselves, others have their confidence destroyed or are left with chronic depression and anxiety. Kids drop out of school and don't reach their potential. If the stuff that happens in schools was happening in workplaces, it would be front page news and warrant a Royal Commission. Even if we don't particularly care about children's welfare, the cost to the taxpayer of the dysfunction that can result from bullying must be huge.
I certainly don't expect you, as an economist, to be able to say anything more substantive than "a lot more could be done." I don't have the answers either but I do urge that the issue be taken much more seriously and that we take off our ideological blinkers in our search for solutions. This shouldn't be a left/right issue.
Fair point. I can't offer much beyond "more of the stuff we've been doing, with some success so far, but not enough"
Spot on re the ban and alternative policies. Re: images, I generally think it is best to use images from the public domain, and there are heaps of great options here: https://www.skeletoncodemachine.com/p/public-domain-art-resources i use these and a combination of my own images (and some cheeky film stills I don't think anyone will object to, though perhaps because I am more of a nobody than you...). But with the public domain art, i often find that looking for an image that complements the post enhances my own thinking in ways I enjoy.
Evidence-based policies are essential - to proceed with a policy just because someone thinks it's a good idea reinforces popular overly-simplistic perceptions of a problem, which I see as part of the poison of social media. But in terms of lowering the voting age, I'd be inclined to go the other way, and raise it, given the way in which people vote against the way their own interests, as perceived by themselves. Or the way young men were persuaded in the US election that they are under threat from rising social equality. Perhaps young people under 18 can apply to vote, and if they pass a test demonstrating they understand how the Australian political system operates (a test many of those currently on the electoral roll would fail), they are then given a pass to vote.
Personally, I would prefer you not use AI images, as AI uses much more energy than would a simple search.
I think it’s a pity you are judging Jonathan Haidt’s work without apparently reading his book. He is a psychologist, and in it he goes through the psychological reasons why social media is so destructive for kids’ development. For one thing, it is highly addictive, and takes them away from face-to-face socialising, real world risk-taking and other challenging experiences, which are needed for the development of their emotional intelligence and self efficacy. It also makes them performative, ie more self conscious and image obsessed, and too easily influenced by malign role models.
Bullying is another factor, which is more easily done on social media, and a group pile-on can be a horrendous experience. Even as an adult I’ve found it highly stressful. I can’t imagine how horrible it would be for a young adolescent, whose self esteem is so tied up with peer approval, and who lacks the emotional resilience to cope with it.
Haidt also links the negative influence of social media with the concurrent rise of parental over-coddling. He says parents over-protect kids in the real world, and under-protect them online.
I’ve certainly noticed the former, which is sad. As a child, I had so much freedom to ride my bike around the streets with my friends, and playgrounds were much more interesting and fun. Our parents just let us do our own thing and didn’t hover over us.
I haven’t finished the book yet, but what I’ve read so far makes a lot of sense, and is heavily backed up with references.
I think it’s a pity you are responding to me without reading my posts which address all these issues.
I entirely agree with your point that if children are expected to conform to adult standards of behaviour and suffer adult punishments if they don't, then they should also be granted commensurate adult privileges like voting. Or, more to the point, not have adult level privileges denied. On the images, I don't care whether you use them or not or where they come from. However, I do think images of children should be used with care; the one you used is obviously staged but should not have been made public in my opinion. They may be acting in adult like ways but the are still apprentice adults do need some protection.
Not convinced that AI images are better than stealing directly from human artists. Can you afford a subscription to one of the cheap stock image sites? But I'm not really convinced by decorative images anyway. Graphs and diagrams are great, but if images make the Al Gore Rhythm happy than bang them in.
To be effective the age limit would need to be matched by education, or education and supervision they way we do with alcohol (cf vapes!). Instead we're in the dogs bark stage before the caravan moves on. It will be interesting to see which sites ban Australians, which ignore the law and which stupid verifications are used before being disallowed as ineffective. I do really love the AI version of "I know it when I see it" as a concept though.
On the substance of the post, I'm on board so far. Completely agree a ban is not a solution. Do like the idea of the limited-functionality phones, but implementing that well could be a problem outside the well-resourced private schools such as featured in your link. That's probably where the solution will have to start - hard to see either the current or prospective federal governments in Australia promoting something like that and doing it well.
On the images, option 2. I think images are a good legibility idea to break up the page even if they don't add much to the content, but even better if they add to the theme. If you're going to use images from human artists I think you should worry about copyright issues and make sure you are creditiing the source and not breaking licences. If you find that too burdensome, I'd suggest you are better off using AI to generate themed images. So my response to your poll would be 2, or 3 if you're prepared to do a bit of research on your images.