New York Times columnist Pamela Paul isn’t often ridiculed on social media, probably because she’s not as histrionic as her colleagues—take your pick: Krugman, Goldberg, Cottle, Klein, French, Bruni, Friedman, Collins, whoever writes the editorials—and says “the quiet parts out loud.” Yet a recent entry of Paul’s has stuck in my craw: I printed out the offensive essay just over a month ago, headlined “A Warning on Social Media Is the Very Least We Can do,” found it on my desk beneath a pile of CDs, and was again agitated by its anti-free speech view. Paul wants the federal government—which is held in such high esteem by most Americans!—to stick its nose into the habits and business of citizens.
The opening cloaks her argument in a statement that few would dispute, that there’s fentanyl epidemic in the country today, and then gets to the meat (real or fake): she quotes surgeon general Dr. Vivek Murthy, who said, “It is time to require a surgeon general’s warning label on social media platforms, stating that social media is associated with significant health harms for adolescents.” That’s too benign for Paul, who writes: “To add muscle to a mere label, we need to prohibit its sale to people under 18 and enforce the law on sellers. We need to strongly regulate social media, as Europe has begun to do, and ban it for kids under 16.”
Europe has its own long list of chaotic difficulties, such as the virulent anti-Semitism that’s ramped up in the past year, so I’ll leave that continent out of the equation. As for Paul, I don’t understand her when saying, “we need to prohibit” the sale of social media to people under 18: does that mean teenagers wouldn’t be allowed to buy products on, say, Amazon, eBay, Barnes & Noble, Uncommon Goods, Zappos or the Substacks of writers and the digital access—puzzles!—to newspapers like The New York Times? (It could be said that The Atlantic is dangerous to people of any age, but I’d let their freak flag fly.)
What about Facebook, Reddit, Instagram, TikTok and X? I don’t bother with the first four—and I’m not a teenager—but a government “ban” for those at the “tender” ages of 16 and under, isn’t that an abridgement of freedom of choice? For example, if Paul were able to snap her fingers and achieve this idiotic goal, it would’ve meant that millions of curious and politically-engaged teens would be denied coverage of the presidential race this year, one that’s—an understatement—historical. They wouldn’t have seen footage online of the assassination attempt of Donald Trump (frightening and violent—like video games—but vital to understanding the United States today), or re-runs of Joe Biden’s increasing difficulty forming sentences that weren’t prepared for him, not to mention Kamala Harris’ laughing tic.
People who are 16 can’t yet vote, but that doesn’t mean some aren’t energized about the election, regardless of political leanings—and at a time when public (and private) schools are such a disaster in much of the country, especially dense urban areas, social media is where youths obtain information. You can argue, as I do, that it’s hard to believe a lot of what’s posted online, but that’s also true of printed publications, which are outdated on the morning of arrival.
Paul’s suggesting, to recall the “Nanny State,” regulations—by the government, which has its own agenda and unknown operatives calling the shots—and if enacted the age would likely rise from 16 to 25 and then for everyone. I’d imagine that Paul, in her mid-50s and educated at Brown University, would dispute what I’ve written above, and claim her real interest is tamping down bullying (which wasn’t invented by Facebook or TikTok) and the easier access to dangerous drugs. But she doesn’t mention smartphones, which facilitate drug deals, vulgar photos texted back and forth—as the forgotten Rep. Anthony Weiner found out—and scams perpetrated by criminals looking to rob (especially) elderly individuals.
She continues: “Free-speech absolutists (or those who play the role when a law restricts something that earns them a lot of money), will say requiring age verification systems is an unconstitutional limit on free speech. Nonsense… We don’t allow hard liquor to be advertised during children’s programming.” That’s not much of an argument: alcohol ads are widely aired during sporting events, as are promotions for pharmaceutical products that show gauzy photos of attractive people while listing the possible side effects, such as “suicidal thoughts” and “death.” Gambling ads are prevalent on TV. This doesn’t bother me—and I don’t “earn a lot money” from any of this—and I’ve never understood the ban on tobacco products on TV, but not booze—as it’s a matter of free choice. One more: teens who are 16 can own a credit card if listed as a subordinate user by an older relative. Paul, selective in her outrage, forgot that one.
—Follow Russ Smith on Twitter: @MUGGER2023
