There was a good story in The New York Times last week—no overt bias, no pro forma rage against Trump—about a lawsuit in Los Angeles instigated by a 20-year-year old woman named Kaley and whoever’s paying for her legal team, against Meta’s Instagram and Google’s YouTube. The charge is that Kaley, and millions of others, are addicted to social media. The reporter, David Streitfeld (at the Times since 2007; at The Washington Post, in 1996, he unmasked Joe Klein as the author of Primary Colors), remarked on the lack of public and media fanfare over what might be thought of as a “must-watch” court case, and said the odds are stacked against the plaintiff. (Only her first name is given because of her “youth,” which is odd for someone’s who’s 20.) It interested me because just several weeks ago, while talking with my younger son—who largely skips social media—he mentioned the case and I hadn’t heard about it. He’s for regulation, as is my older son who doesn’t believe video games should be sold to anyone under 12. I don’t think about the issue much, but when pressed, I oppose any sort of social media regulation, figuring that people can decide for themselves, and if minors, that’s a parenting responsibility, not the government’s.
My predominant online site is X/Twitter, which is useful for news (much faster than traditional media, although both are often inaccurate), cultural commentary and horsing around with “mutuals.” I’ve never used Instagram, Threads or WhatsApp (all under Mark Zuckerberg’s Meta umbrella) and in the past six or seven years look at Facebook once a week. At Facebook I see blatantly false stories (like the supposed death of Art Garfunkel about a month ago) and obituaries of people I once knew, or, more happily, former classmates’ welcoming grandchildren to their family. Granted, I haven’t much of a presence there, but see little original writing, and long ago stopped posting stories from Splice Today, since I have no interest in engaging with others about the content. ST publishes articles from every ideological viewpoint and there’s no upside to arguing with someone I don’t know on a site like Facebook.
I use social media for promotion, like most publishers, journalists and photographers, but would have little use for it (at least actively) if I got out of the business. I never use Reddit, occasionally check LinkedIn (the nerdiest site, which is saying something), haven’t once logged into TikTok (though my wife likes it for cooking and funny dog videos) and ignored Bluesky, the crazy (or so I’m told) and weak competitor to Twitter, or Trump’s Truth Social. I like YouTube for videos of classic rock, pop and country songs, and commercials from the 1950s, ‘60s and ‘70s, but it doesn’t occupy much time. I’m 70, from a far different media era, but it’s not as if Boomers aren’t a big component of the millions upon millions who spend their time scrolling. And I’m still ticked off (disgusted is too strong a word) when forced to dodge pedestrians whose noses are buried in their phones or people holding up supermarket lines because they’re gabbing. I turn my phone to silent when at a restaurant or doctor’s office (no longer a requirement at such places) because it’s courteous.
Streitfeld is correct here about the current trial: “This might seem surprising for a case that is in many ways about so many of us and our increasingly online behavior. But society long ago rendered a verdict on social media, which has been under such heavy criticism for nearly a decade that the talk about its harms has become close to background noise.”
Social media “addiction” is often compared to the consumption of tobacco products, on the slow downswing since the Surgeon General’s report in 1964. I smoke cigarettes, but have accepted the ban in public spaces (it’s a “background” restriction” to me), although I find it hypocritical that tobacco companies are banned from advertising on television and radio (Jan. 2, 1971), while alcohol, online gambling and pharmaceutical products are omnipresent on that medium. It should all be legal—prostitution too—let people decide for themselves.
That’s likely a minority view: my older son Nicky (co-pilot at Splice Today) believes that social media, in excess, is rotting peoples’ brains and needs regulation. I get his argument—and, at 33, he’s in a better position than me to gauge the rise of imbecility in people under 40 (not that imbecility is limited to that demographic)—but even though I couldn’t care less if Mark Zuckerberg and his tech peers/competitors are dunned billions by successful lawsuits, too much regulation (which leads to more regulation) violates my lifelong political and cultural beliefs.
—Follow Russ Smith on Twitter: @MUGGER2023