Author: dailycastsocal

Roughly two decades after social media started growing in popularity, the U.S. Surgeon General issued an advisory in 2023 raising the possibility that too much screen time might negatively impact a young person’s mental health. Such concerns aren’t isolated to the United States; just last month, Australia became the first country to implement a social media ban for children under the age of 16. Assemblymember Josh Lowenthal, D-Long Beach, the co-sponsor of a proposed bipartisan bill that would hold large social media companies accountable for harm caused to minors, was in Australia when that country’s new law went into effect. After meeting with policymakers and stakeholders there, Lowenthal has returned with fresh ideas for other ways California might protect youth and other online users from social media harm. “We need to be looking at this as a public health issue,” said Lowenthal, the father of three girls ranging in age from 11 to 15. According to the 2023 U.S. Surgeon General’s advisory, more research is needed to fully understand social media’s impact, but a growing body of research suggests possible detrimental effects. “While social media may have benefits for some children and adolescents, there are ample indicators that social media can also have a profound risk of harm to the mental health and well-being of children and adolescents,” the report said. The American Psychological Association reports that many teens spend nearly five hours a day on social media, with over half spending at least four hours each day on such platforms. In addition, the association said teens who use social media most frequently report suffering from poor mental health at higher rates, including a greater tendency to think about suicide or self-harm. Lowenthal attributed a dramatic rise in youth suicide rates, eating disorders, anxiety and depression over the past decade to too much time spent on social media — and the resulting social pressures, including obsession with body image, that many young people experience. “Youth mental health is in an awful state right now,” said Lowenthal, adding that many young people “don’t feel good about themselves, so it’s yielding awful, anti-social outcomes. … We’ve got to right this ship.” He has a bill making its way through the California Legislature that would make a social media company financially liable if it “fails to exercise ordinary care” and that negligence results in a child or teenager being harmed. AB 2 was introduced in December 2024 but turned into a two-year bill, meaning lawmakers can work on it again this year. According to a bill analysis from last year, a tech-industry coalition opposes the proposed legislation. Electronic Frontier Foundation, which describes itself as a nonprofit that defends digital privacy, free speech and innovation, previously said the bill is too vague in defining what counts as negligence by a social media company and could result in broad censorship. “To be sure, children can be harmed online. AB 2, however, takes a deeply flawed and punitive approach to protecting children that will disproportionately harm everyone’s ability to speak and to access information online,” EFF wrote to lawmakers last spring. But Lowenthal’s efforts to protect young people from the potential negative impacts of social media don’t end there. Now, Lowenthal is considering whether California should have an e-safety commission. Australia has one, he noted, with a staff of about 30 people and the authority to demand data from social media companies, conduct studies and implement policies. Australia’s commission also operates a portal where members of the public can report content they find objectionable, and the social media companies must respond to the commission, giving consumers peace of mind, Lowenthal said. The Assembly member said he’s talking with other legislators and key stakeholders to explore the idea of California adopting its own e-safety commission. As for whether California should implement a social media ban similar to Australia’s, Lowenthal said he’d support restricting young people from using social media until they reach “an age where the scientific and pediatric communities say it’s healthy.” An age limit for social media use would not be unlike how there are already age restrictions to watch certain movies, drink alcohol or drive, he said. “We have set certain ages that are grounded in science based on development of the brain at various stages in life,” he said. Australia’s social media ban, meanwhile, has caught the attention of government officials worldwide, including Denmark, New Zealand and Malaysia, which are considering following suit. Gov. Gavin Newsom has taken notice as well, though he hasn’t offered a formal position on Australia’s law. “Some of those headlines in Australia start making you think: Are we doing enough? Can we do more?” Newsom said during his State of the State address last week. Tara Gallegos, a spokesperson for the governor, later clarified that Newsom was not expressing an opinion about Australia’s specific policy but was, more broadly, encouraging legislators and other policymakers to discuss whether there should be additional protections for young people online. The governor signed a bill in 2024 barring online platforms from knowingly providing addictive feeds to minors without their parents’ consent, and which also bans platforms from sending notifications to minors during school and late-night hours. He signed other bills last year to further protect children online, including one requiring social media platforms to post mental health warning labels to minors. During his State of the State speech, Newsom said children are increasingly anxious and less happy “because so much more of their lives is lived online.” “So much of their lives have become performative, right? Measured by external validations — likes and followers,” he said. “We’re watching the spiritual health of our young people erode.”   Source link