Politicians Scapegoat Social Media While Ignoring Real Solutions

Holding social media companies solely responsible for the mental health challenges faced by today’s youth is not only misguided—it’s dangerous. Misdiagnosing the problem means your solutions are going to be actively harmful.

I know that, these days especially, it seems that the thing everyone across the political aisle seems to agree on is that the internet is uniquely harmful for children, and, somehow this is all, “big tech’s fault.” And, yes, we can all point to examples of where internet companies could do better.

But, as we keep pointing out, reality is a lot more complex than the simplistic narrative that “tech is a unique evil and out to get kids.” First off, many of the underlying problems are societal problems, which the internet is merely shining a light on. Those problems are most tempting for politicians to freak out about because their existence often highlights governmental failures where all the internet is doing is shining a light on those problems.

Enter Jennifer Siebel Newsom, wife of California governor Gavin Newsom, going on a rant complaining about internet companies “failing to address social media addiction and mental health problems among young people.”

Of course, the narrative about “social media addiction” is not actually supported by the facts or data. What the data has shown, repeatedly, is that for a very small percentage of users — mainly those who are dealing with existing mental health issues, and who don’t have the support or resources they need — may turn to social media instead, and that can be problematic.

And when the tech companies try to study these things in order to fix them, their studies get falsely portrayed as “not doing anything” to fix the problems, making it that much more difficult to get the companies to do any more research to help.

So, the very framing of Siebel Newsom’s complaint is misguided, and she should (maybe) be asking her husband why California isn’t doing enough to support the cohort of students who need mental health resources and aren’t getting them.

The rest of her speech is equally misguided:

She also noted industry efforts to stymie the state’s landmark Age Appropriate Design Code — a law designed to protect children’s online privacy and safety — that has been held up in courts since the governor signed it in 2022.

“We’re sadly being held back by capitalist interests,” the first partner said. “For me, legislation is necessary if the tech companies aren’t going to be more transparent.”

It’s not “capitalist interests” that held up the AADC. It was the First Amendment of the Constitution. You know, part of the document your husband took an oath to “support and defend.”

The AADC wasn’t just blocked because of whining, but because the law itself would lead to the suppression of constitutionally protected speech, as the judge clearly explained. And that suppression of constitutionally protected speech could, in many cases, cause real harm, such as by suppressing useful information on mental health and suicide prevention for kids.

But Siebel Newsom doesn’t seem interested in actually understanding what works. She seems to just want political wins for her husband.

I recognize it’s convenient to claim that it’s just “big tech” that pointed out the constitutional flaws of the AADC, but they were just the only ones that could afford the lawsuit. There were plenty of others, myself included, who pointed out just how dangerous a law this was.

In an interview with POLITICO following the panel, Siebel Newsom called tech companies the “Wild West” and spoke to the need to protect children.

This is also nonsense. The “wild west” trope hasn’t been true in more than a decade, but it makes for a convenient scapegoat for people like Siebel Newsom trying to divert attention from the failings of her husband as California’s governor.

For what it’s worth, most of the big tech companies actually supported the AADC. They know that they’re already doing most of what it requires, and also that the law creates a moat that smaller competitors will struggle with. The idea that big tech doesn’t like the AADC may be a convenient narrative for Siebel Newsom to spread, but it’s a myth.

Siebel Newsom, during the panel, also spoke about her experience as a mother to four children between the ages of 8 and 14, who have had their own struggles with social media. At one point, she choked up recounting how the couple had to pull one of their kids out of school because of online bullying.

“Granted, we’re public figures, but what we’re seeing, sadly, are adults coming after our own children online — parents of children, and then the children mimicking it. I actually pulled my daughter from school,” she said. “It’s bad.”

That does sound bad, and I have sympathy for any family dealing with bullying. But bullying predated the internet, and it is something that lots of families and schools have dealt with for years. A CDC study from a few years back found that offline bullying at schools was noticeably more prevalent than online bullying.

Is Siebel Newsom advocating for new laws to punish schools that allowed bullying to happen on campus?

In fact, multiple studies have shown that online bullying has actually been on a massive decline over the last few years. Some attribute that to school lockdowns during COVID-19, but that seems strange, given that interactions between kids increased online due to those lockdowns.

Indeed, I’ve heard from a few researchers suggesting that the biggest success in stopping online bullying among students was simply better education. Schools are starting anti-bullying education programs much earlier, and it’s a bigger focus in curricula, which, at least, appears to be having an impact.

But sure, let’s blame tech for not magically stopping this larger societal issue.

Look, everyone wants to make sure kids are safe and not being bullied. But these politicians with simplistic answers, who immediately blame tech companies, continue to present answers that make them feel good, but do little to deal with the realities and actual complexities of the issues at play.