The recent case of General Surgeon Vivek Murthy order warning labels on social media is a good idea. He notes that children who spend a lot of time on social media are at risk for mental illness. Murthy concludes: “The moral test of any society is how well it protects its children.”
But what is the best way to protect children? Murthy recognizes that a warning label is a simple solution to a complex problem. Last year, his office published a more detailed report highlighting that schools, parents, policymakers and technology companies have a role to play in protecting children. And long-term solutions depend on education.
There is probably a role for bans as well. Smartphones have been banned in schools in Fresno and recently in Los Angeles. This week, Governor Newsom called for a statewide ban on smartphones in California schools. Social networks and smartphones are not the same thing. However, the school ban on smartphones is actually a ban on social media during school time.
Opinion
Tools and technologies can be used in good or bad ways. A hammer can be used to build or to destroy. Bans are justifiable when the risks are obvious and serious and when the purported benefits of a tool are unclear. And with children, their relative immaturity matters. Banning social media access for children may be justifiable and there is some wisdom in banning smartphones at school. But right now, banning these technologies is equivalent to closing the proverbial barn door once the horse has galloped.
People disagree about the risks and benefits of various technologies. We could argue against these bans on the grounds that these technologies are more beneficial than harmful. These tools help us stay connected, access news and conduct business. Of course, these tools also provide instant access to cyberbullying, exploitation, fraud and disinformation. But there is some truth to the statement that with smartphones and social media, it’s not the tool that’s to blame, but rather how it’s used.
Some technophobes oppose any innovative tool. Calculators were once viewed with skepticism, as was the Internet. These days, technophobes are worried about artificial intelligence. But skeptics often adapt to new technologies when their safety and usefulness are proven.
Radical libertarians resist all prohibition efforts. The recent Supreme Court case allowing “collision stock” weapons are worth mentioning here. The decision depends on a technical issue involving trigger mechanisms. But the larger question, undecided in this case, is whether there should be limits on dangerous weapons or whether individuals have the right to possess even very dangerous weapons.
Social media and smartphones don’t seem as dangerous as machine guns. So it’s easy to imagine a libertarian argument against Newsom’s proposed ban. Furthermore, social media is useful for children. It’s how they socialize, organize clubs and teams, and how they communicate with each other and even with their parents. Smartphones can be useful in education when used properly to access information.
A total ban could take away useful tools. And a school ban will have no impact on out-of-school use. But there is no doubt that education is part of the solution. Teenagers must take a driving course and pass a driving license test. Perhaps a similar training course and qualification exam could be created for social media and smartphones.
Children need critical lessons about cyberbullying, peer pressure, the effect of movement, and the power of misinformation and exploitative algorithms. They also need frank examples of the dangers of social media and smartphone addiction. They would benefit from a training course that includes lessons on “digital citizenship”, “ethical AI” and “virtuous virtual reality” that encourages best online practices and good moral habits in cyberspace.
A Surgeon General’s warning is just a starting point for a broader conversation. We need to continue this conversation. A school ban might help. But the horse of social networks and smartphones has already left the barn. Children need to learn the skills and virtues necessary to ride a horse without getting hurt.
Andrew Fiala is professor of philosophy and director of the Ethics Center at Fresno State. Contact him at fiala.andrew@gmail.co m
