Actually this could be a really good analogy on many levels.
For example: Comparing the THC levels of the 60s to the THC levels today, and the potency social media of the 90s to the social media today seems appropriate. I mean one can only do so much social media over a slow modem on a home that has a single shared phone line.
The problem is, what is "it"? Are applications like WhatsApp and iMessage social media? They seem to be significant sources of teenage angst but they are also incredibly useful tools. What about Hacker News? Is it social media?
I am not sure what the value is in severely regulating half a dozen or so companies when work arounds are so easily to implement. Maybe as a stop gap solution while we figure out long term solutions (which the government has a horrible track record on).
But for any long term solution we would first have to define what social media even is, and in a way that's testable in court. Don't run away from the hard things, but wow, that's hard.
With any regulation there are pro/cons. You've highlighted a con but there are significant pros to overcome.
I grew up in a pre internet world. We had "negative effects being left out of a social circles" then too. Social circles being hard is not going away regardless of how this decision lands.
> I grew up in a pre internet world. We had "negative effects being left out of a social circles" then too. Social circles being hard is not going away regardless of how this decision lands.
The fact that you never grew up in the social media world highlights exactly why you don't understand the problem despite thinking you do. Your good old "social circles being hard" issue is not the problem here.
Please understand that there are plenty of situations where someone gets invited to something if and only they are visible to others and easy to invite. i.e. there exist plenty of situations where being on the platform is the sole determining factor. And that being off the platform that the majority use puts a very significant, ongoing, and asymmetric burden on the host (or invitor, if it's a different person) to keep them posted on all the details that did not exist otherwise, and this fundamentally makes one less likely to be included, in an entirely natural and unavoidable fashion that is no fault of anyone involved, and has nothing to do with "social circles being hard".
You have to recognize when the system is making a problem worse than it naturally is.
> You have to recognize when the system is making a problem worse than it naturally is.
The irony. How can you be certain that it's not social media making "problem worse than it naturally is"? Many people believe that social media is.
As someone who was not particularly visible, and was not invited to every party, I am very aware that "there are plenty of situations where someone gets invited to something if and only they are visible to others and easy to invite". Is "not being on social media" really all that different than "not being on the <insert sport> team"? The same arguments apply. Easier to see and invite teammates, more social cache, etc.
In any case, if all teens were off social media then it would not be a determining factor, and I'm sure alternative systems would emerge for inviting people to places.
> The irony. How can you be certain that it's not social media making "problem worse than it naturally is"? Many people believe that social media is.
It is the problem. I don't think you understood my point. If nobody in high school had it, I wouldn't be bringing it up. The problem here is some students will have it the last year and some won't. By seeing it at 18, you're making it worse for the younger kids. Either 19 or 16 would be better.
I didn’t think that was your point so I did misunderstand it. I agree this is a concern but I’m not sure how it’s totally avoided. 12% of high school seniors graduate at 19.
In any case, I’m probably not the right person to determine the cutoff criteria. Whatever the boundary, that’s going to be a rough time for those going through it.
> I’m not sure how it’s totally avoided. 12% of high school seniors graduate at 19.
I mean there's a reason (well, multiple) why I suggested 16 instead of 19. I just pointed out that 19 to try to get my point across about social media being harmful.
> Whatever the boundary, that’s going to be a rough time for those going through it.
Again, this wasn't the point. The point was that if you do this in the last year of high school, you're not just giving younger kids a temporary rough time for that one year. You're also robbing them of their very last opportunities to form the stronger long-term connections they would have made during that time, which inflicts life-long damage to them socially. If you put the cutoff a little earlier so they all have a year or two to adjust to the new social environment, you avoid that long-term harm.
Also, nobody said the cutoff has to be rounded to the exact day. It could just as well be moved to coincide with the start or end of a school year, avoiding this problem entirely. And it'll be easier to enforce in school too.
For example: Comparing the THC levels of the 60s to the THC levels today, and the potency social media of the 90s to the social media today seems appropriate. I mean one can only do so much social media over a slow modem on a home that has a single shared phone line.
https://www.newscientist.com/article/2396976-is-cannabis-tod...