Josh Hawley's Social Media Ban Will Make Kids More Depressed
When COVID-19 and the U.S. government stopped kids from seeing each other, social media was their lifeline.

On Tuesday, Sen. Josh Hawley (R–Mo.) proposed new legislation that would prohibit young people from using social media. His bill, stylized the "Making Age Verification Technology Uniform, Robust, and Effective" (MATURE) Act, is extremely and obviously flawed, as Reason's Elizabeth Nolan Brown noted yesterday.
The MATURE Act would require sites like Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, and YouTube to verify that users are at least 16 years old. That verification process would force social media platforms to scan users' driver's licenses or other forms of government-issued identification, thus necessitating a staggering degree of data collection on the part of the companies. Foes of Big Tech who rightly worry about online privacy in the modern age should consider how proposals exactly like this one would greatly exacerbate that problem.
Indeed, this legislation would cause many problems that the tech-skeptical right needs to consider. Do conservatives appreciate just how stunning and sweeping a change it would be to suddenly deny millions of kids and teens access to fundamental—and popular—areas of the internet? This is a radical proposal that would profoundly deny kids access to information and socialization. Young people get their news from YouTube and TikTok. They use the direct messaging functions of Twitter, Instagram, and Snapchat to stay in touch with their friends. Facebook has become less popular with Gen Z; even so, there are tens of millions of kids between the ages of 13 and 16 using the platform right now. It would be incredibly naive to think that they get no value out of these services.
Hawley's legislation does exempt social media sites from seeking age verification of current users, which makes some sense, though could easily create a situation where some young people still have access to a platform even though many of their peers do not. In practice, kids and teenagers will obviously find ways to get around age verification; one of the kinder things that can be said about the MATURE Act is that it might not be very effective.
But the aim of the legislation is really worth some scrutiny, including from Republicans. After all, what exactly is conservative about suddenly blocking millions of kids' access to the internet? Do conservatives not realize how much of teens' identities are connected to their social media presence—where their peer networks reside and where their self-expression is actualized?
Elon Musk has called Twitter the digital town square, and Republicans seem to agree with him, which is why they suddenly favor versions of anti-discrimination laws intended to prohibit social media companies from banning conservatives. Does it really make sense to say that 15-year-olds may not access the town square? Are we so sure that teenagers who are a few months away from applying to college and making decisions that will affect their finances and professional prospects for decades can't be trusted to log on to Facebook?
Foes of social media say that it is harming young people and point to rising rates of depression among teenage girls as one consequence. It is undoubtedly true that some excess amount of social media usage is unhealthy among some number of teenage users, though evidence of causal harm has been wildly exaggerated, including by the so-called Facebook whistleblower. But even if one concedes that too much time on Instagram is a bad thing for some teenage girls, it does not follow that depriving millions of young people of any access to social media would be a boon to teen mental health. On the contrary, abruptly flipping the internet's off-switch would be a great way to make a whole lot of kids miserable.
We have, in fact, already run this experiment, and it was recently. In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, state and local governments placed massive restrictions on young people. They closed schools and delayed or even eliminated extracurricular activities. The most normal and healthy activity for kids—hanging out with friends, in person—was stigmatized. But for kids who found themselves in this soul-crushing reality, social media was a vital mitigator of loneliness. As Reason's David McGarry pointed out in a recent article, research shows that young people who were virtually connected to each other during the pandemic had better mental health outcomes than their peers.
It is incredibly reckless to close off what was an incredibly important lifeline for lonely young people just because not all outcomes and usage patterns are ideal. COVID-19 and the U.S. government brought the lives of kids and teens to a standstill; the Hawleys of the world seem to be saying, Try it without the internet as well.
Parents should feel empowered to make their own choices regarding what levels of social media consumption are appropriate for their individual kids. The MATURE Act substitutes their judgment for that of the federal government. It is as contrary to the idea of parental rights as any legislation being offered by Democrats.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Hawley's a megalomaniac but nobody's stopping kids from seeing each other
I have made $18625 last month by w0rking 0nline from home in my part time only. Everybody can now get this j0b and start making dollars 0nline just by follow details here........... https://salarybez4.blogspot.com/
Except maybe the government.
Hawley is proof that it's not just the left that wants to control people.
my STL friends who never escaped are terrified
I don't mind that, but if the law has no provision that states the corporation collecting the data cannot archive the ID card or Credit Card data, that they cannot sell the data to anyone.
IOW just use an ID or CC to login, once approved, the data is wiped. That would be appropriate.
In fact, REQUIRE ID or CC for sites that promote porn. NO FREEBIES unless you verify you are of age and use the CC to pay for the smut. NO ID, NO CC, NO ACCESS.
Why is your disapproval relevant to anyone other than you?
Pornography is not going away. Most likely pornography has existed since humans could create images. Prostitution is probably older than that. If anything can be considered central to the human species (and almost unique in the animal world) it is the pursuit of sexual pleasure unconnected to procreation.
The negatives of giving tech companies more (and more important) personal information like a DL or other government ID are much more dire than the nanny-state solutions you mentioned (requiring age verification for porn and requiring all porn producers to charge for any of their products).
Less government and legislation, especially surrounding issues of personal morality, is better than more.
Robby, they need to put the phones down, get offline, and actually meet each other.
^ This
And if they won’t do it on their own, government should make them do it. Right?
No. M”Kay? Although keeping your groomer friends away from kids is a good idea.
No. M”Kay?
Oh, so you are opposed to Josh Hawley's proposal, on libertarian grounds? Are you willing to say so explicitly, or would that be considered "driving a wedge between libertarians and conservatives"?
And they should regulate the transport of bears in trunks?
So you are mocking me even though you agree with me that this bill is a bad idea. Why is that?
We've all read your comment history here, Jeffy. Hope that answer suffices.
I'm mocking you since you agree with InsaneTrollLogic and then read something he hadn't written.
I don't agree with InsaneTrollLogic since I am not interested in policing kids' phone behaviors and I am not interested in having the government dictate to parents what is the "correct" way to parent their kids.
https://reason.com/podcast/2021/10/25/freedom-responsibility-and-coronavirus-policy/#comment-9176512
You deserve mockery.
You deserve condemnation for continuing to pollute these boards with nothing but right-wing propaganda.
I always support the right to arm bears - - - - - - - -
I want to arm the right bears.
Did you even bother to read my comment, Jeffy, or did you just make an ass out of yourself by assuming?
Oh I read your comment. So you support Hawley's proposal then, or not?
Why should I answer you one way or the other?
Because it's a valid question and it directly addresses the article in question?
Because that is what a person interested in a dialogue might do?
Oh wait a minute, you're just a troll. Never mind, carry on.
Jeffy, Jeffy, Jeffy, thoust reputation precedes you.
No no, I get it. To you I represent THE ENEMY and it is more important to you to present solidarity against THE ENEMY rather than criticize someone on your own tribe, or at least adjacent to it.
So it's OK if Jesse criticizes Josh Hawley. But it's NOT OK if *I* criticize Josh Hawley. Even if the criticism is on the exact same basis. Because to acknowledge MY criticism is to give 'aid and comfort to the enemy'. But acknowledging Jesse's criticism is helpful to the overall cause of DESTROYING THE ENEMY.
Am I close? I think I'm close.
Just to be clear, you are also for child prostitution, legal heroin and fentanyl, and elective surgeries for children correct? The reason the government restricts certain things from children is because their brains are biologically incapable of determining whether something would be a good thing to participate in. Indeed, arguably all of contract law should be rewritten to reflect this fact and any contracts entered into with minors be heavily biased towards the minor and any contracts longer than a year entered into with 18-23 year olds be heavily biased in favor of the 18-23 year olds.
"you are also for child prostitution"
I've come to realize that if Jeff, Sarc, or Mike post something the paleos will swarm them like locusts. It won't even be interesting or thought-provoking because there's rarely any substantive engagement, it's just different versions of "You're a liar. See all these past examples I've obsessively saved?" It's sad, but harmless.
But accusing someone of supporting child prostitution is too far. As offputting and gross as the "groomer (but not the real groomers in churches and the Boy Scouts)" paleo narrative is, it's at least a generalized accusation against an entire group. This is much, much worse. Can't you just stick to calling him a liar because he's a liberal?
A few years back an acquaintance flew in with her grandchild from Europe. A classmate of the grandchild was also on the flight. They texted each other the entire fight and never made face to face contact.
His argument is akin to trans activists who use child depression to cut tits off.
So say it Jesse: "I oppose REPUBLICAN Josh Hawley".
After all, what exactly is conservative about suddenly blocking millions of kids' access to the internet?
It is the apotheosis of conservatism, actually, back to what the word originally stood for. It is the idea to resist change for change's sake, since the status quo represents a time-tested example of success, whatever its current flaws may be. So in this context, conservatism, now, means using the power of the state to enforce the traditional, time-honored method of parenting. If parents want to hand their kids an iPhone and don't mind that they are snap-chatting their friends without supervision, then they are doing it wrong because it is against the traditional method of parenting, and it is only right that the government step in and tell the parents the correct way to raise their kids. Because that is what the kids deserve - a successful model of parenting, not this modern calamity foisted upon us by Big Tech.
Of course, lost in all of this is the libertarian idea that it isn't really the government's job to be dictating to parents the "best" way to raise their kids. But that is because conservatives and libertarians have parted ways.
Oh Jeffy, always with The Narrative. Of course conservatives and libertarians are going to disagree on various things. Even libertarians aggressively disagree on various subjects, like abortion. So of course you see this as an opportunity to drive a wedge between sincere libertarians and conservatives with your usual bullshit about how libertarians have more common cause with your Marxist democrat friends.
Seriously, fuck off with that. You’re selling, but no one is buying.
Wait, you think the libertarian position has more in common with "Marxist democrats"? Have you heard of Hillary Clinton and "It Takes A Village"? Both teams are now totally in favor of massive state interference in parenting decisions.
you see this as an opportunity to drive a wedge between sincere libertarians and conservatives
Josh Hawley is the one who drives the wedge between libertarians and conservatives when he proposes bullshit like this.
"Josh Hawley is the one who drives the wedge between libertarians and conservatives when he proposes bullshit like this."
You are 100% right chemjeff.
You might as well write a bill that tells parents to actually parent their crotch goblins. It’s amazing how many people refuse to tell their kids “no”.
I’ve made $84,000 so far this year working online and I’m a full time student. I’m using an online business opportunity I heard about and I’ve made such great money. It’s really user friendly and I’m just so happy that I found out about it. The potential with this is endless.
Here’s what I do…………..>>> http://www.jobsrevenue.com
"Josh Hawley's Social Media Ban Will Make Kids More Depressed"
So what? Why should progressives have a monopoly on making teens suicidal?
Are you sure they haven't teamed up again on Big Tech? I've seen a number of Hawley/Richard Blumenthal policy proposals.
Josh Hawley has occasionally done things I've liked but he possesses a wealth of really bad ideas.
How is this any different than the left's idiotic vaccine passports?
While your on the topic of depressed kids, any thoughts on the push for SEL and CRT that is making them more depressed, more anxious, and having lower test scores? I guess since Republicans didn't do it it's not news
Great, now my son will have to steal my ID or use a sketchy website to create a fake ID in order to use insta.
This is a stupid idea, but it's going nowhere.
Meanwhile Reason's allies are destroying our lives and establishing totalitarianism at an alarming pace.
https://twitter.com/jokersillysongs/status/1625974398967578646?t=r7bPXihBMfaeojATTjqH4w&s=19
So I finished "Machete Season"
Figured since some of you won't take the time to read (but you should) I'll provide what I found to the most important takeaways —
• It was the fastest, most efficient genocide in history. If it had gone as long as the holocaust, it would have killed 12,000,000+ people.
• Most of the perpetrators were completely ordinary people. Farmers.
• The vast majority of the killing was done with machetes. Intimate.
• Most of the victims knew their killers personally, sharing communities with them for years, friends even.
• Compared to the differences between people groups in multiracial countries, there were very few differences between the Tutsi, the victims, & the Hutu, their killers.
• For the hesitant Hutus, many went along simply by threat of fine for not participating & ostracization.
• However, many willingly participated because killing meant you could loot/pillage. The bellies & coffers of the killers were full, at least by African standards.
• Most of the killers were professing, practicing Christians (majority Catholic) & maintained after the killings. They killed on Sundays.
• Killers when interviewed only would provide genuine accounts if the actions were referred to collectively, not individually
• There was a shared attitude among the killers that they could exercise the brutality they did because the whites evacuated, "turned a blind eye," as if they were arbiters of justice despite many just being religious missionaries/clergy
• Hutu women more or less endorsed the killings. Very little in terms of protest, even at the murder of women and children.
• Killers would often deflect, lie, or refuse to answer questions if the questions led toward individual responsibility in the killings...
...any cooperative answers were normally given because it implicated the group, not the individual.
• The killers avoided referring to their actions as a genocide.
• Anti-tutsi propaganda played a large part in preparing the Hutus for their eventual actions. Tutsis historically were the aristocratic class prior to 1961, whereas Hutus were serviles. This was dissolved completely outside of wealth for many years by the time of the killings.
• Tutsis were labeled "cockroaches" , parasitic, schemers, untrustworthy, & were painted as wanting to subjugate Hutus again. Propaganda played to past grievances.
• & finally, most of the killers expressed no regret/remorse for their actions. They were mainly sorry they didn't "finish the job" & now have to pay for what they've done. They participated because they thought it would be total & there would be no chance for retribution.
Things that have been considered bad for the children and worthy of a ban...
Soda fountains.
Dancing.
Comic books.
Movies.
Rock and Roll.
Television.
Videogames.
And about a million more things, especially...
DRUGS!!! DRUGS!!! DRUGS!!!
Josh Hawley.... building 'unity' with the Nazi's I see....
F'En RINO.
Hawley is just another dumb motherfucker (MAGAfucker?) who thinks big government should be doing the job of parents. He wants all traces of anonymity to be gone from the internet so his MAGA police can track down every random comment and record it in hopes that his savior (Trump) is re-elected and they get to finally install a dictatorship.
A DE-Regulating dictator??? That's a new one.
Only dumb enough to be thought up by leftard dictators.
Wow, you missed what really happened versus what the "media" told you. Mass deregulation happened under Trump. No restrictions on Free Speech is what Trump has been fighting for, and you can do it on Truth, Rumble, and Parler, even with your leftists views. Now the so-called MAGA crowd is consistent that minor children should be treated differently than adults. I advise young adults to remember that their frontal lobe (Logic) is not fully developed until at least age 24.
There are definitely problems with kids and social media (just look at the tide pod challenge), so I understand why people would support something like this. That said, it's not government's job to parent people's kids, its bloody parents' job!
Reason idol Matty Iglesias doing some “freelance traffic enforcement”
https://twitter.com/JackPosobiec/status/1626434657897119744?t=silvAA4oL2yt7fOpIIf_ig&s=19
Zoom in on the plate
He reported a Disabled Veteran
Piece of shlit
[Link]
But even if one concedes that too much time on Instagram is a bad thing for some teenage girls, it does not follow that depriving millions of young people of any access to social media would be a boon to teen mental health. On the contrary, abruptly flipping the internet's off-switch would be a great way to make a whole lot of kids miserable.
We have, in fact, already run this experiment, and it was recently. In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, state and local governments placed massive restrictions on young people. They closed schools and delayed or even eliminated extracurricular activities. The most normal and healthy activity for kids—hanging out with friends, in person—was stigmatized. But for kids who found themselves in this soul-crushing reality, social media was a vital mitigator of loneliness.
Forcing children to only be able to communicate via social media with no in-person contact is vastly different from forcing children to communicate in person with no social media contact. That is what the pandemic/lockdowns showed us. These are entirely opposite situations, and one of them would have a positive impact.
Having said that, I do not support this proposal, at all. Parents should be responsible for their children, not Congress.
Does that include leaving parents alone if they allow their child to socially transition or take puberty blockers?
I’ve made $84,000 so far this year working online and I’m a full time student. I’m using an online business opportunity I heard about and I’ve made such great money. It’s really user friendly and I’m just so happy that I found out about it. The potential with this is endless.
Here’s what I do…………..>>> http://www.jobsrevenue.com
The pandemic is an exception, so those defenses are somewhat moot. I hate regulation, but something has to change. Social media interaction is neither good or evil, but it does play into emotions and values that are not so good for young impressionable minds. Children, Step-Children, Foster Children, etc., I have personally (and hope responsibly) dealt with over 40 in the last 30 years. Radical behavior has been ratcheting up for years.
I grew up in the 70s and graduated with 200 classmates in 1981. In the fall of 1980, I bet there were at least 100 guns in the parking lot, especially for the week after Thanksgiving (Deer Season). Most homes in the area had guns. Yet, there were no mass shootings. Very few incidents of any type of shooting of humans. Those few were limited to alcohol/drugs, domestic disputes, or robbery attempts. What changed? Media/Culture?
The author proposes Social Media was the “cure” for a “societal ill” which was completely unnecessary and government caused?
Teen female suicides up 400% since the advent of social media. Ignoring all the other brilliant flashing red warning signs, that alone should inform any reasoning creature that social media is not a “cure” to anything but sanity.
Please remove this totalitarian from the contributors of Reason.
An ironic concern troll from the publication that promotes turning kids into trannies
I'm concerned about black bear on black bear crime.
The fertilized eggs?? Everyone keeps telling me its a 'baby'.
It's nice to finally see some common-sense language come to the topic.
You idiots really believe anybody gives a shit about the comments in Reason? You people are deluded. A bunch of angry scumbag blues and reds arguing like every other idiotic comment section. But keep pretending you matter in the grand scheme. You don't
What a novel and refreshing take. First time here?
That's the argument I keep hearing.
A stork is carrying an "already" baby around somewhere in fantasy land.