Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Social Networks The Internet

Surgeon General Wants Tobacco-Style Warning Applied To Social Media Platforms (nbcnews.com) 80

Posted by BeauHD from the immediate-action-needed dept.
An anonymous reader quotes a report from NBC News: U.S. Surgeon General Vivek Murthy on Monday called on Congress to require a tobacco-style warning for visitors to social media platforms. In an op-ed published in The New York Times, Murthy said the mental health crisis among young people is an urgent problem, with social media "an important contributor." He said his vision of the warning includes language that would alert users to the potential mental health harms of the websites and apps. "A surgeon general's warning label, which requires congressional action, would regularly remind parents and adolescents that social media has not been proved safe," he wrote.

In 1965, after the previous year's landmark report from Surgeon General Luther L. Terry that linked cigarette smoking to lung cancer and heart disease, Congress mandated unprecedented warning labels on packs of cigarettes, the first of which stated, "Caution: Cigarette Smoking May Be Hazardous to Your Health." Murthy said in the op-ed, "Evidence from tobacco labels shows that surgeon general's warnings can increase awareness and change behavior." But he acknowledged the limitations and said a label alone wouldn't make social media safe. Steps can be taken by Congress, social media companies, parents and others to mitigate the risks, ensure a safer experience online and protect children from possible harm, he wrote.

In the op-ed, Murthy linked the amount of time spent on social media to the increasing risk that children will experience symptoms of anxiety and depression. The American Psychological Association says teenagers spend nearly five hours every day on top platforms such as YouTube, TikTok and Instagram. In a 2019 study, the association found the proportion of young adults with suicidal thoughts or other suicide-related outcomes increased 47% from 2008 to 2017, when social media use among that age group soared. And that was before the pandemic triggered a year's worth of virtual isolation for the U.S. In early 2021, amid continued pandemic lockdowns, Murthy called on social media platforms to "proactively enhance and contribute to the mental health and well-being of our children." [...] A surgeon general's public health advisory on social media's mental health published last year cited research finding that among its potential harms are exposure to violent and sexual content and to bullying, harassment and body shaming.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Surgeon General Wants Tobacco-Style Warning Applied To Social Media Platforms More

Surgeon General Wants Tobacco-Style Warning Applied To Social Media Platforms

Comments Filter:

  • FaceBook Can Cause Cancers of the Mouth And Throat, Even If You Do Not Post.

  • Would slashdot get a warning label?

    • Slashdot - the anti-social social media platform!

    • Don't think so (Score:5, Insightful)

      by rsilvergun ( 571051 ) on Monday June 17, 2024 @03:41PM (#64556355)
      /. Is the social media equivalent of gas station meth. We are generally beneath the notice of regulators because we're too skeezy for them to bother with.

      • I think we're different because our jackassery and stupidity is self-driven. Our particular algorithms are exceedingly simple - infantile by modern standards.

        - Post Apple stories so that herds of morons can arrive with no other point than to declare the huge numbers of users technically illiterate or sheep-like
        - Post technological "breakthroughs" so that people whose scientific background begins and ends with google can opine about the likelihood of success
        - Post something twice because lots of people will

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by chas.williams ( 6256556 )
      That's why they should put the label on the outside of the cellphone box. Then it is just as useful as the cigarette warning.

      • That's why they should put the label on the outside of the cellphone box.

        You use your phone for Web sites? Who hurt you so much that you're willing to self-mutilate?

        • You use your phone for Web sites? Who hurt you so much that you're willing to self-mutilate?

          Who said anything about self-mutilation? Reading a news website today may cause a significant rise in blood pressure and the ocasional a spontaneous ballistic trajectory for the phone that could accidentally impact the health of those nearby.

          • It doesn't have to be a news website; people seem to get irate about Wikipedia these days. The only safe thing is not to use your phone.
  • Do you really think that anyone who pay any attention to them? It has been 50 years since the warnings were put on tobacco products and people still smoke. It has become less socially acceptable, but I doubt that the warnings have any effect.
    • True. The tobacco settlement of the late 90s was the biggest contributor to the drop in smoking. It imposed massive taxes on tobacco products and used much of that money toward highly effective and targeted advertising campaigns. (The campaign was so effective that tobacco companies lobbied to have those monies diverted to health care.)

      Having an ad campaign that alerts teens to the dangers could be as effective as the anti-smoking campaigns, but it's hard to find a means of taxing social media companies to

      • Anecdotally, it seems like the anti-smoking initiatives just caused teenagers with an inclination to smoke to switch to vaping instead. Then, despite the evidence that vaping is significantly less harmful, the government still perceives it as a significant health threat in need of rectification. At some point you'd think it'd become self evident that a not-insignificant portion of our leaders simply have a problem with hedonism itself.

        • The tobacco deal preceded vaping easily by a decade, so the data showing the efficacy are reliable. Vaping was catapulted by advertising to teens before it was regulated. Kids were getting sick from vaping because if excess vitamin e added to the formulas, IIRC. The regulation was meant to halt the production of harmful formulas, not vaping itself, though thatâ(TM)s coming.
    • The goal would be to formally establish that harm can come from social media so that you can take steps to mitigate that harm.

      The hard part is taking the correct steps. On the right wing of the scale You've got people that want to either ban or control social media, usually by selling it off to a trusted billionaire...

      On the left wing of the scale (the actual left wing not neoliberals like Hillary Clinton) you have people that want to teach critical thinking and medial literacy in public schools and

    • Do you really think that anyone who pay any attention to them?

      Not to mention the obvious 1st Amendment violation such a mandate would impose.

  • Just government bureaucrats flailing at the air around them trying to come up with something to justify their jobs. But! on the plus side, their not using their public service positions and tax dollars to attack their ideological and political foes.

  • This will become just another piece of verbiage that 99.9% of visitors will not read even if they have to click through it. The social media companies will get their lawyers to write the stuff in a way that is as close as possible to the line without actually being illegal.

    See this other story today about Adobe hiding important terms [slashdot.org] in its terms & conditions. These people are con men who are out to bamboozle the typical customer and want to screw them for as much money as they can. It is a wild west ou

    • "How to fix this ?" or you could just choose not to do business with Adobe or use any of their products!
    • For taking action against the harm done. That said it doesn't necessarily mean banning social media or even selling it off to somebody who we find desirable. The correct response to social media is to teach critical thinking and medial literacy in public schools and to do nonpartisan PSAs on them.

      The problem with that is we spend 16 billion dollars during an election year on political advertising that doesn't really work if you have a population that can think critically and evaluate media critically...

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by cstacy ( 534252 )

        The correct response to social media is to teach critical thinking and medial literacy in public schools and to do nonpartisan PSAs on them.

        Ten year old and 15 year old (and 23 year old for that matter) children are (statistically speaking) biologically incapable of what you are asking: logically reason about future outcomes from a biologically addictive pleasure machine for which there is the most extreme peer pressure to be a user.

        Children didn't stop smoking because of advertisements; they stopped because of effective enforcement of the law against letting them buy cigarettes, and the refornation of the adults who watched those advertisement

        • it is currently impossible to prevent them from getting it [...] The only way to get kids off social media is to entirely re-think what devices we allow them to have

          Effective solutions are not available right now but are being worked on. The only problem is that it is considered a swear word on this website: "age verification".

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by cstacy ( 534252 )

            it is currently impossible to prevent them from getting it [...] The only way to get kids off social media is to entirely re-think what devices we allow them to have

            Effective solutions are not available right now but are being worked on. The only problem is that it is considered a swear word on this website: "age verification".

            Interesting that you immediately suggest Government intervention. My idea is that the parents tell the children "NO" and implement the lock-out on their kid's phone. The reason that this is not possible is THE PARENTS ARE UNABLE TO SAY NO.

            The government doesn't need to be involved at all. It's a personal choice of the parents. The parents have chosen not to parent. This is why society is fucked, and this is a particular instance you can point to. No fucking personal responsibility. Let the government raise

            • The government doesn't need to be involved at all. It's a personal choice of the parents. The parents have chosen not to parent.

              I'm answering your comment saying "And it is currently impossible to prevent them from ..." I say it's possible. Then you don't like that some implementations involve the government, but that's a separate topic, and we'll come to it next:

              Interesting that you immediately suggest Government intervention.

              There are multiple ways to implement age verification, only some of them involve the government.

              Obviously all of them involve a birth date, which in is usually recorded by a government entity, but showing a proof of a date is not a direct involvement of the government.

              This is why society is fucked,

              You s

            • Maybe I misunderstood your argument, and you meant. by "intervention", to force an age limit on social network through laws. It is already the case, it is 13 years. My suggestion is maybe it would be wiser to make it a bit above, like 15-16 years. This this does not usually need a law, promoting a meeting of stakeholders and asking them to be kind enough make proposals themselves, is usually enough. It's a sort of intervention, but a moderate one.

              Unlike some other things, such as porn, it does not in this case matter what OTHER parents do

              I would say it's nearly the opposite. For pornography, what o

  • Social Media Warning Label:
    WARNING! Social Media is how we ended up with a man in a dress in a high level government position. Beware!

  • I mean what doesn't cause cancer, anyway?

    • I mean what doesn't cause cancer, anyway?

      Pretty much any toxic substance won't cause cancer if you get a high enough dose.

  • Interacting with social media may be detrimental to your subservience to government overreach.

    • Interacting with social media may be detrimental to your subservience to government overreach.

      That ship has sailed. We literally banned an entire social media network because "China BAD!" and collectively the American public was fine with that. The only things Americans really get riled up over is if you try to take away either our guns or our cars. Doesn't matter how many people those things kill, we're dead set on keeping those.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by cstacy ( 534252 )

        The only things Americans really get riled up over is if you try to take away either our guns or our cars. Doesn't matter how many people those things kill, we're dead set on keeping those.

        Senator Kennedy's car has killed more people than my guns. (None of which has ever jumped off the rack and "gone off" on a killing spree, by the way.)

  • What's the threshold? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Murdoch5 ( 1563847 ) on Monday June 17, 2024 @03:37PM (#64556343) Homepage
    If the threshold is “Hasn't been proven safe.”, then be prepared to affix it to almost everything, including salad. If the threshold is “causes known and defined harm when used excessively.”, then you still have to prove that.

    Religion is objectively worse for kids than “social media”, but would you ever demand religious instruction have a warning before it's taught? Should kids have less time on “social media”, yes, but, since the current climate and culture focuses on being social, and connected constantly, then we're just back in the early 80s trying to make false flag warnings about computers.

    Instead of warning labels, we need better education, and that involves teachers and parents educating themselves. The real problem is large groups want to remain blind and uneducated, and blame the kids for their lack of awareness. Before someone tries the “Social media is designed to be addictive.”, all products are designed so you'll use them.

    • Religion is objectively worse for kids than “social media”, but would you ever demand religious instruction have a warning before it's taught?

      Hell, the forced social interaction of attending good ol' boring public school has caused more than a few kids to lose their shit. Young people have always found ways of antagonizing each other, but social media at least has a "block" button.

      What's next, a warning on school toilets that bullies might use them to give you a swirly? Way to completely not address the actual issue of kids generally being shitty humans towards each other.

      • Exactly! Why not put the warnings on barbells: “Warning could cause pain, swelling, and calluses formation.” Social media isn't the problem, a lack of education is the problem. Would they put a warning in a maths textbook, “Doing math can induce headache and confusion.”?

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by RobinH ( 124750 )

      We have the laws and systems and social conventions that we do because they're effective at solving problems. Market economies aren't perfect but they're better solutions to the problem of how to efficiently distribute capital and resources than feudalism, authoritarianism and communism. We don't have market economies because they provide more freedom. We have more freedom because market economies work.

      Similarly, if you invent a new technology that's particularly dangerous (nuclear physics) then you can

      • I have no problem with what you said, except, you have to show that “social media”, has objective dangers, first. Objective danger is a high bar to clear, it's not just hurt feelings, and insults, you have to show X is dangerous and has Y effects. The issue with using hazy / unclear, or dogmatic driven and pre-concluded research, is that it's subjective by design. People want “social media” to be dangerous for children, so they assert that, and then link every false flag to that

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by ljw1004 ( 764174 )

      Religion is objectively worse for kids than "social media", but would you ever demand religious instruction have a warning before it's taught?

      That's a strong statement! My profession is in social media, and (despite being atheist) I send my kids to a Jesuit school because I think their development will be better served by it. I personally perceive religion to be much better for my kids than social media, but that's my personal feeling. I don't understand how you could claim a connection to "objectivity" in this matter?

      • Look at what religions teaches kids, especially the Abrahamic faiths. You should punish and torturer yourself, because a deity or force created everyone faulty, and that's our fault. The majority of religions have a concept of hell, so we also teach kids they will have their eternal existence held up in a place in which they can only suffer. Why do most religions cause this suffering? The deity or force didn't leave any evidence, so you have to believe without any, contrary to any other area.

        For instan

  • No (Score:2)

    by The Cat ( 19816 )

    Compelled speech is a violation of the First Amendment. If there are any warnings necessary they will come from parents.

    Same goes for that idiotic EU cookie notice that ended up turning the entire web into a redundant junkyard.

    News flash: if you are in the United States, you are not subject to EU law, regardless of the justification. You do not vote there. You do not pay taxes there. We fought two wars to get away from European kings. We have our own country now with a flag and everything.

    Meanwhile, if yo

    • Like all things constitutional the actual document is just the first layer of many many precedents on these very issues, there is a nice writeup here:

      Graphic Cigarette Warning Labels, the First Amendment, and Public Right to Accurate Public Health Information [jamanetwork.com]

      Thus, in Zauderer, the standard of review for compelled disclosure was determined by the Court to be “reasonably related to the State’s interest in preventing deception of consumers.”16 This standard of review is, arguably, comparable

      • He noted that a mandated disclosure is constitutional as long as it is “purely factual and noncontroversial”

        You can conclusively prove that cigarettes cause cancer or that alcohol negatively affects your ability to operate a motor vehicle. However, the vast majority of people are handling social media just fine.

        I suppose it would be factual if you made the claim that only some users of social media experience negative psychological impacts from its use, but that's true of just about everything. Heck, some of us actually enjoyed the solitude of the Covid lockdowns while others said it was causing them to go stir

        • Exactly why this all boils down to some law-talking-guys making their case because like everything has some effect on things so how do you legally draw lines? Many times legislators just assume the courts will sort out the finer details on things.

          Even cigarettes, sure they cause cancer but lots of things cause cancer so how much cancer and how often? "The cigarettes supress my appetite, i'd be a big fatass without them" (I made that up but I would believe tobacco companies actually used this defense)

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by The Cat ( 19816 )

        With all due respect to the Reynolds decision, their reasoning is flawed. Strictly speaking, the First Amendment's obvious purpose is to protect the speaker, regardless of the content of the speech in question. The idea that there exists some duty to "protect" the listener is an excuse that opens the door to tyranny.

        It is one thing to prohibit deceptive speech, because that implies intent. Speakers have a duty to tell the truth in a variety of contexts because to do otherwise would necessarily be an element

        • There can be no prohibition on incorrect speech

          But there are and have been for a long time in several other precedents, even just NYT/Sullivan established actual malice standards, things are hardly as absolute as you make them, there is no "total government control" as much as there is total freedom to say whatever with no consequences, theres a process built by the decades of precedent that has to be applied judicially to these things.

          Under Article VI, the Constitution supersedes all rulings of the Supreme Court without exception.

          What do you think this statement means?

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by The Cat ( 19816 )

            even just NYT/Sullivan established actual malice standards

            Malice and incorrect are not synonyms.

            theres a process built by the decades of precedent that has to be applied judicially to these things

            The Constitution trumps all precedent.

            What do you think this statement means?

            Its meaning is not ambiguous. Neither is the meaning of Article VI.

            • The Constitution trumps all precedent.

              Ok lol. Obviously the law understander has logged on lol. good luck with all that.

              • Re: (Score:2)

                by The Cat ( 19816 )

                Yeah. Not a lot for the government to twist and distort with only five words, is there?

                Them framers, man. Stone geniuses one and all.

                • they were geniuses and they understood what they wrote

                  how does the constitution actually "supercede" anything in practice, its just words on paper right? who decides when that gets applied?

                  • Re: (Score:2)

                    by The Cat ( 19816 )

                    who decides when that gets applied?

                    According to the Ninth Amendment, the people. We grant a Supreme Court the authority to rule on constitutional matters under Article III, but the Constitution is the people's document.

                    The words "supreme law of the land" mean exactly that.

                    • So the Supreme Court undergirded by the Disctrict Courts and other Federal courts are the ones who actually interpret the words and apply it to the laws on the books. Thank you, that's been exactly my point.

                      If you are arrested for a crime do they charge you with violating The Constitution? No, they charge you with the crime you commited based on the laws and the combination of legislation and precedents are the structure the judicial system is built on. The Constitution is the bedrock of all of this.

                      It's

    • ... our own country ...

      Yes, a country that says other countries have to obey their rules, particularly when using the internet.

      ... right to publish what you like.

      WARNING: Straw-man detected.
      The government is not preventing anything from being published. It's demanding something be published: It's demanding a service tell the truth, up front. If you have a problem with that, I have a bridge to sell to you.

      At best, you can argue that social media doesn't measurably impact mental health, although Facebook's own research says it does.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by The Cat ( 19816 )

        The government is not preventing anything from being published.

        If you don't do as you're told, you're not allowed to publish.

        Maybe you have an alternate definition?

        It's demanding a service tell the truth, up front.

        The government has no legal authority to demand a third party tell the truth except in cases where it is a crime to do otherwise.

        The government has no legal authority to protect anyone from hearing non-truths either.

        At best, you can argue that social media doesn't measurably impact mental health, although Facebook's own research says it does.

        The federal government has no legal authority to mandate mental health.

        This is why we have a Constitution. It prevents the government from usurping authority it does not and should not have. The

        • ... you're not allowed to publish.

          ... Or manufacture medicines, or ferry passengers or vote. What you're demanding is, corporations have the same rights as people. Fine, l'm sure at least three (public) corporations deserve to be executed, do that and we can start discussing how to protect the rights of corporations.

          ... authority it does not ... have ...

          Laws passed by the government makes corporations 'alive', so corporations can do only what the law permits. The constitution is irrelevant to the topic and a straw-man.

      • Comment removed based on user account deletion

  • The Surgeon General should stick to medical not social issues.
    The position merely gives some bureaucrat opportunity to dress up as a third world potentate. That they have military-style uniforms at all is archaic nonsense.

  • This will be about as effective as California's "Everything causes cancer" warnings from Prop 65.

  • The right thing to require a notice to be displayed is if "Posts are censored, promoted, or curated by this website and post or likes shown may not reflect the actual points of view of participants" Then someone can at least understand that they shouldn't believe everything they see on the internet.

  • Maybe the Surgeon General should stick to cutting holes in people and stitching them up and leave Social Media policy to the Psycho General.

  • Can I sue for being affected by posts I had nothing to with?
  • Social media is cancerous.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by JustNiz ( 692889 )

      Only if you buy into the popular US culture that someone else is always to blame for your own bad decisions.

      • No, it's a cancer on our entire civilization. When the Surgeon General of the U.S. is asking for a warning label be added to social media sites because it's damaging to kids' mental health, then it's safe to say it's cancerous.
  • It's beyond any doubt that social media, pfft... cellphones in general... are completely addictive.
    You are all addicted with all the negatives. Ignoring people right in front of you for instance. These things actually DO affect your life and your family's lives. So the SOLUTION is

    Limit your time on the device

    I know, shocking, right?

    The sites themselves would have to track your time and NO ONE gets more than 90 minutes. Then chop chop. No Social Media for you, you'd have to read a book, watch tv, talk to you
    • Comment removed based on user account deletion
      • funny... I remain unconvinced ... based on behaviour of ... pretty much everyone.

        Other than coming here to have take the temperature of other techies, and sometimes get interesting insights into topics I don't know well, I find Slashdot has a range of topics that generally interest me and I find this site has reasonably rational discourse... even when we disagree, like now. Do I enjoy /. Yes. Could I live without it. Yes.

        I'm not holier than thou. I've was addicted to technology, probably before you were bor
        • Comment removed based on user account deletion
          • Most people want what they want and won't change no matter the consequences. But this is reality: alllll reformed addicts will tell you the same story: "I woke up one morning (usually after their friend OD'd) and said I have to choose between life and death."

            I guess you just haven't lived thru the grim reality of addiction. Not funny or trivial at all. It's not a popular thing to tell you that there is an element of self control, self ownership, is required to survive that, in a world that wants to characte
            • Comment removed based on user account deletion
              • You're not wrong that the consequences are different and for most cases Social Media won't kill you. It will affect your relationships though, and recall that's my, and a widely accepted definition of when a behaviour tips into negative effects.

                You can take potshots all you want. I've been around the track and counselled several people on substance abuse and addiction. The results are tragic in most cases. I know where I'm at and I'm not addicted to very much, by choice. And that's the core of the issue: Ch

  • Social Networks were my research area decades ago, as such, I have been on them since the beginning, so have my children. Thanks to Facebook recommendations I have reconnected with a number of old friends and discovered a plethora of fun events including romantic trips with my wife, obscure opera groups nearby. Even restaurants. I know what's available to eat in the local diners and when they're having live music shows.
    What's wrong with social networks? lol

  • do not redeem

Slashdot Top Deals

If all else fails, lower your standards.

Close