Study: Social Media Don't Displace In-Person Hangouts for Teens
Teens who use social media heavily also spend the most in-person time with friends.
Teens who use social media heavily also spend the most in-person time with friends.
From struggle sessions to cancel culture, the story depicts the terrors of surveillance authoritarianism.
Only 22 of the 476 studies in The Anxious Generation contain data on either heavy social media use or serious mental issues among adolescents, and none have data on both.
"It's just an effort to keep everybody safe and make sure nobody has any ill will," he claimed.
A new survey highlights how fear-based parenting drives phone-based childhoods.
Prof. Hamburger continues to conflate coercion and voluntary choice.
Prof. Hamburger is wrong to argue that the use of the word "abridgment" implies that noncoercive government persuasion directed at social media firms violates the First Amendment.
The law would require platforms to use invasive measures to prevent most teenagers under 16 from making social media accounts and bar all minors from sexually explicit sites.
The problem is the users, not the apps.
Plus: NYC squatters, sex differences and chess ability, trouble at the ACLU, and more...
The Biden administration’s social media meddling went far beyond "information" and "advice."
If partisans have one thing in common, it's confirmation bias.
The justices established guidelines for determining whether that is true in any particular case.
The government is entitled to try to persuade social media to take down posts, but not to coerce them to do so.
Several justices seemed concerned that an injunction would interfere with constitutionally permissible contacts.
Plus: A listener asks about Republicans and Democrats monopolizing political power in the United States.
The newspaper portrays the constitutional challenge to the government's social media meddling as a conspiracy by Donald Trump's supporters.
"It's a disturbing gift of unprecedented authority to President Biden and the Surveillance State," said Sen. Rand Paul (R–Ky.).
Plus: Kamala Harris' abortion clinic visit, Karl Marx's hypocrisy, CDC data struggles, and more...
Instead of freeing Americans from censorship, the TikTok bill would tighten the U.S. government's control over social media.
Another blow to the idea that algorithms are driving our political dysfunction.
Even as they attack the Biden administration's crusade against "misinformation," Missouri and Louisiana defend legal restrictions on content moderation.
"Laws like this don't solve the problems they try to address but only make them worse," says a Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression attorney.
A new bill would ban TikTok and give the president power to declare other social media apps off limits.
"People are not in politics for truth-seeking reasons," argues the data journalist and author of On The Edge: The Art of Risking Everything.
A law forcing kids off social media sites is still likely coming to Florida.
"It is immoral that in a poor country like ours," the Argentine president said, "the government spends the people's money to buy the will of journalists."
The First Amendment restricts governments, not private platforms, and respects editorial rights.
Supreme Court arguments about two social media laws highlight a dangerous conflation of state and private action.
Maybe the problem for teens isn't screens, but what they are replacing.
The Supreme Court seems inclined to recognize that content moderation is protected by the First Amendment.
Plus: Migrant resettlement, Tom Cotton op-ed scandal, oppressors-in-training, and more...
The laws violate the First Amendment because they require social media sites to abjure most content moderation, and platform speech they disapprove of.
Both states are trying to force tech companies to platform certain sorts of speech.
From limits on liability protections for websites to attempts to regulate the internet like a public utility, these proposals will erode Americans' right to express themselves.
The president criticized companies for selling "smaller-than-usual products" whose "price stays the same." But it was his and his predecessor's spending policies that caused the underlying issue.
"None of these laws prevent kids from viewing anything. They just prevent kids from posting," argues Shoshana Weissmann.
Banning people under age 16 from accessing social media without parental consent "is a breathtakingly blunt instrument" for reducing potential harms, the judge writes.
Maybe the problem for teens isn't screens, but what they are replacing.
Throughout Republican-run Western states, lawmakers are passing legislation that treats adults as if they are children.
The Biden administration's interference with bookselling harks back to a 1963 Supreme Court case involving literature that Rhode Island deemed dangerous.
AI tools churning out images of fake IDs could help people get around online age-check laws.
Plus: A listener asks if it should become the norm for all news outlets to require journalists to disclose their voting records.
The verdict vindicates the constitutional rights that Louisiana sheriff's deputies flagrantly violated when they hauled Waylon Bailey off to jail.
Republicans and Democrats are using emotional manipulation to push an agenda of censorship.
Don't let a moral panic shut everything down.
Priscilla Villarreal, also known as "Lagordiloca," has sparked a debate about free speech and who, exactly, is a journalist.
Help Reason push back with more of the fact-based reporting we do best. Your support means more reporters, more investigations, and more coverage.
Make a donation today! No thanksEvery dollar I give helps to fund more journalists, more videos, and more amazing stories that celebrate liberty.
Yes! I want to put my money where your mouth is! Not interestedSo much of the media tries telling you what to think. Support journalism that helps you to think for yourself.
I’ll donate to Reason right now! No thanksPush back against misleading media lies and bad ideas. Support Reason’s journalism today.
My donation today will help Reason push back! Not todayBack journalism committed to transparency, independence, and intellectual honesty.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanksSupport journalism that challenges central planning, big government overreach, and creeping socialism.
Yes, I’ll support Reason today! No thanksSupport journalism that exposes bad economics, failed policies, and threats to open markets.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanksBack independent media that examines the real-world consequences of socialist policies.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanksSupport journalism that challenges government overreach with rational analysis and clear reasoning.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanksSupport journalism that challenges centralized power and defends individual liberty.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanksYour support helps expose the real-world costs of socialist policy proposals—and highlight better alternatives.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanksDonate today to fuel reporting that exposes the real costs of heavy-handed government.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanks