|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready... |
Social media has been around for twenty years, but it has not lived up to its promises. It may be time to consider making access to it an adult privilege.
I chose to share this on LinkedIn for a reason. LinkedIn started around the same time as Facebook, and Twitter followed soon after. Each platform had its own stated purpose, but all promised to improve communication, help people build communities, and strengthen civic life. Social media was meant to bring people together, expand access to information, and give a voice to those who previously did not have one.
Nearly twenty years later, social media has not kept that promise. What it has become is very different from what it claimed it would be, and the gap between expectation and reality now carries real social consequences.
The original case for social media rested on democratization. Anyone could speak. Anyone could organize. Anyone could be heard. In practice, access remains uneven across the world, while influence within platforms is dominated by those with money, institutional power, or the ability to exploit attention at scale. Instead of flattening hierarchies, social media has often reinforced them. Instead of encouraging dialogue, it has rewarded provocation and speed. Instead of strengthening communities, it has turned interaction into performance.
Today, most major social media platforms function primarily as advertising systems. Most content is trying to sell something, whether it is a product, a personal brand, a political idea, or outrage itself. This is not simply a side effect. It is the business model. These platforms make money from engagement, and the easiest way to generate engagement is by triggering strong emotional reactions rather than encouraging understanding. The result is an environment where misinformation spreads quickly, and visibility is no longer tied to credibility.
This outcome was not inevitable. Earlier online communities operated differently. The WELL, founded in 1985, required users to use their real names and emphasized personal responsibility for what they said. It relied on subscriptions rather than advertising, which encouraged participation instead of compulsive return. It demonstrated that online spaces could support thoughtful conversation when growth and monetization were not treated as the highest priorities.
Modern social media platforms chose a different path. Beginning in the mid-2000s, they prioritized growth and engagement above all else. Algorithms designed to maximize attention replaced human judgment, and advertising became more important than accountability. These choices produced predictable results. Social media has been repeatedly associated with harassment, political manipulation, fraud, and the rapid spread of false information. These are not rare failures. They are features of systems that reward intensity and repetition.
Children and teenagers have borne the greatest cost. As smartphones and social media became widespread, mental health outcomes among young people worsened. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reports that persistent feelings of sadness and hopelessness among U.S. adolescents increased sharply between 2010 and 2021. The U.S. Surgeon General has warned that social media poses a real risk to youth mental health, particularly through sleep disruption, social comparison, and exposure to harmful content. These concerns are supported by a growing body of research, even as experts continue to study the nuances.
This issue is not simply about how much time children spend on screens. It is about exposing developing minds to systems intentionally designed to capture attention and shape behavior at a stage when self-control and identity are still forming. Teachers report increasing difficulty maintaining focus in classrooms. Parents describe intense resistance when trying to set limits on device use. Clinicians more frequently observe patterns that resemble dependency rather than casual engagement. Some young people do find support and information online that they cannot access elsewhere, and those benefits are real. But they coexist with systems that encourage compulsive use and emotional volatility.
As a society, we already accept that access to powerful systems should be age-regulated. We restrict alcohol, driving, voting, military service, and other civic privileges because we recognize that maturity does not arrive all at once. Each of these areas is regulated for different reasons, but they share a common principle. Exposure carries risk, and risk justifies limits.
Social media now belongs in that category. This is not an argument for banning platforms or restricting free speech. It is about treating access to large, algorithm-driven social media systems as an adult privilege rather than a default condition of childhood. Raising the minimum age for full access to twenty-one is a serious policy proposal, not a rhetorical gesture. It reflects growing evidence that brain development and social maturity continue into early adulthood, and that these platforms influence how people think, regulate emotion, and understand the world.
The strongest counterarguments deserve acknowledgment. Critics argue that age limits threaten free expression, are difficult to enforce, or undermine parental authority. These concerns are legitimate, but they are not decisive. Age-based regulation already exists across many areas of life without eliminating adult freedom. Enforcement challenges have never prevented regulation where harm is well established. Parents remain essential, but they cannot counteract systems deliberately engineered to overpower individual control.
The question is not whether social media should exist. It will. The question is whether we are willing to govern it based on what we now know about its effects. Other countries are beginning to move in this direction. The United States should not pretend that inaction is a neutral choice.
The coming decades will require citizens capable of sustained attention, critical reasoning, and emotional resilience. Addressing climate change, advancing science, and maintaining democratic institutions demand depth and patience rather than constant reaction. At present, we are not consistently cultivating those qualities. We are immersing young people in environments that reward distraction and conformity while weakening the habits required for independent thought.
Social media did not fail simply because it exists. It failed because it has been allowed to operate without meaningful limits while shaping an entire generation. Twenty years is enough time to assess the results honestly. The evidence is now clear.
We have changed laws before when new technologies altered how children grow up. It is time to do so again, not out of fear, but out of responsibility.
What are your thoughts on Social Media?
Lynn Scheid
