| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="SecondEssay" |
|---|
|
|
<
< | Outline |
>
> | You’ve Got an iMessage: Stop Using “Bad” Tech |
| | |
|
<
< | The Fiction. Why Are Teenagers Addicted to Bad Tech?
- Feelings of Validation
- Sense of Belonging
The Reality. What Do Teenagers Really Want?
How to Give It to Them?
Potential Regulatory Solutions
- Strengthening COPPA
- Algorithmic Accountability
- The EU’s Approach
Building Better Tech for Teenagers
- Encouraging Positive Tech Use
- Empowering Teenagers Through Digital Literacy
- Role of Parents
Conclusion |
| | |
|
<
< |
|
>
> | Ding, beep, buzz! Click ads, scroll, and share your life...
Social media and current technological tools hurt people. This paper explores people’s harmful exposure to “bad” technology since childhood and how this has radically transformed their communication modes and social interactions. |
| | |
|
<
< | You’ve Got an iMessage: Teenagers Use Bad Tech |
>
> | There is a disturbing trend. Tech companies, peers, and cultural narratives instilled – you are not “cool” if you don’t own the latest iPhone or maintain a presence on Facebook, Instagram, or Snapchat. There is no doubt that many people’s formative years are now increasingly shaped by digital interactions. It is, however, understood that there are stark consequences of bad tech and social media overuse on mental health and interactions with others. I consider how “bad technology” harms us early on by surveilling us, increasing insecurities, and transforming our communication. I attempt to suggest potential paths to safeguard our well-being. |
| | |
|
<
< | Ding, beep, buzz! Click ads, scroll, and share your life’s details… |
| | |
|
<
< | Social media and current technological tools have negatively impacted how humans interactsince their youth. |
>
> | Why is Bad Tech Harmful? |
| | |
|
<
< |
Does this mean "have hurt people"?
|
| | |
|
<
< | There is a disturbing trend among teenagers in the United States, instilled by tech companies, peers, and cultural narratives – you are not “cool” if you don’t own the latest iPhone or maintain a presence on Facebook, Instagram, or Snapchat. There is no doubt that many youngsters’ formative years are now increasingly shaped by digital interactions. It is, however, understood that there are stark consequences of bad tech and social media overuse on mental health, with a direct impact on aspects such as a sense of belonging and individuality, and this has garnered the attention of psychologists, parents, and policymakers. I consider why teenagers are addicted to bad tech, its negative impacts, and potential paths to build better technological environments that safeguard their well-being. |
>
> | Harms from Systems’ Surveillance |
| | |
|
<
< | The Fiction. Why Are Teenagers Addicted to Bad Tech? |
>
> | The technology we use daily surveils us. We trade our privacy for the illusion of convenience offered by smartphones. Not only does it track us when doing simple tasks such as eating (e.g., ordering food from UberEats? ), but it also deprives us of our ability to learn and associate with others in educational settings. In schools, children are subject to harm from the EdTech Surveillance Industry, resulting in the loss of their trust and data. Universities also leverage such tools; for instance, Courseworks provides the convenience of a single platform but comes with costly surveillance. |
| | |
|
<
< | Feelings of Validation |
>
> | Harms from Other People |
| | |
|
<
< | Social media involves mechanisms that exploit the psychological vulnerabilities of children. The “Likes” and “followers” used on platforms for social validation feed the egos of users and create a dopamine rush similar to addictive substances. The psychological lure of “likes” can shift teenagers’ perceptions of behaviors, making them more likely to engage in maladaptive actions (e.g., cyberbullying, rumor-spreading, sexual solicitation) for online approval. Another concern is that when metrics decrease, they trigger anxiety, depression, and feelings of inadequacy. |
| | |
|
<
< | External validation challenges teenagers to mimic what is posted online. Influencers often portray curated lives that establish unattainable standards for appearance and popularity, amplifying teenagers’ insecurities and stifling their identity development. The promotion of a comparison culture contributes to social isolation as teenagers retreat into digital spaces, distancing themselves from real-life and family interactions. |
| | |
|
>
> | Feelings of Validation: People’s Opium |
| | |
|
<
< | Sense of Belonging |
| | |
|
<
< | Additionally, teenagers crave peer acceptance, and tech companies have exploited this need by positioning their products as essential status symbols. A Pew Research Center study has shown that 95% of teens access smartphones, and 45% are online constantly. More specifically, Apple’s marketing strategies and cultural dominance make the iPhone a badge of social inclusion. The possession of an iPhone impacts the social media consumption of teenagers, particularly girls, with four key demands: “Entertain me, help me, share with me, and never let me go.” While there are legal deliberations regarding teenagers’ possession of smartphones, current control – an inefficient solution – is implemented in educational settings. |
>
> | Social media involves mechanisms that exploit people’s psychological vulnerabilities, especially among children. While it has been proven that young brains are even more vulnerable to social media than adults as they begin socializing at school and developing their personalities, such mechanisms may negatively impact anyone, from children to elders. The “Likes” and “followers” used on platforms for social validation feed the egos of users and create a dopamine rush similar to addictive substances. The psychological lure of “likes” and such metrics’ decrease can trigger users’ anxiety, depression, and feelings of inadequacy. |
| | |
|
>
> | External validation challenges people to mimic what is posted online. Influencers often portray curated lives that establish unattainable standards for appearance and popularity, amplifying vulnerable adults’ and youngsters’ insecurities and stifling identity development. These glamorous lifestyles incentivize people to portray an image far from who they really are, causing their relationship with themselves to deteriorate. Promoting such comparison culture contributes to social isolation as we retreat into digital spaces, distancing ourselves from real-life interactions. |
| | |
|
<
< | The Reality. What Do Teenagers Really Want? |
| | |
|
<
< | Research has shown teens desire platforms offering safety, privacy, and authentic friendships. Additionally, a Common Sense Media study indicated that 57% of teenagers acknowledge spending too much time on social media and wish to reduce their usage. |
>
> | Goodbye, old friend. |
| | |
|
<
< | Yet, the technology teens use does not align with their needs for privacy and meaningful connections. Online activities by teenagers generate vast amounts of personal data, which tech companies monetize through targeted advertising. Investigations revealed that platforms like TikTok? and Instagram use algorithms to monitor the behaviors of teenagers, prioritizing engagement over well-being. |
>
> | People’s reliance on technology to communicate with colleagues, friends, and family instead of in-person modes of communication increasingly isolates them and strains relationships. Worse, some lead a virtual life in a Metaverse or video games such as Second Life, where players get married through avatars. Truth is: Early on, we have forgotten that in-person interactions are irreplaceable to nurturing bonds with others, building trust with genuine emotions instead of smiling emojis, and making memories to look back on, unlike ephemeral social media stories. |
| | |
|
<
< | Potential Regulatory Solutions |
>
> | How to Mitigate Harm? |
| | |
|
<
< | The U.S. regulatory framework that addresses technology use by teenagers is fragmented but evolving. More efforts are needed to address the rising challenges. |
| | |
|
>
> | Against Harm from Systems’ Surveillance |
| | |
|
<
< | Strengthening COPPA |
| | |
|
<
< | Although the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA) prohibits data collection from children under 13 without parental consent, teenagers aged 13-17 remain vulnerable (Federal Trade Commission). Thus, COPPA could be expanded to cover teenagers aged 13-17. Recent legislative proposals, such as the Kids Online Safety Act (KOSA), aim to fill some gaps by disabling addictive features with options for teens aged 13 to 16 and mandating stricter privacy controls and platform transparency requirements (Richard Blumenthal). |
>
> | Regulatory Potential Paths |
| | |
|
<
< | Algorithmic Accountability |
>
> | The U.S. regulatory framework that addresses technology use is fragmented but evolving. |
| | |
|
<
< | Another effort is S.3572 Algorithmic Accountability Act, reintroduced in 2022, which seeks to hold companies accountable for the societal impact of their algorithms. Some of the strategies outlined in the bill include assessing whether algorithms disproportionately harm teenagers by promoting harmful content or enabling cyberbullying (117th Congress.gov). Mandating regular audits and public disclosures could pressure tech companies to prioritize safety over profit. |
| | |
|
>
> | Protecting Children: Strengthening COPPA |
| | |
|
<
< | The EU’s Approach |
>
> | Although the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA) prohibits data collection from children under 13 without parental consent, teenagers aged 13-17 remain vulnerable (Federal Trade Commission). Thus, COPPA could be expanded to cover teenagers aged 13-17. Recent legislative proposals, such as the Kids Online Safety Act (KOSA), aim to fill some gaps by imposing that organizations disable addictive features with options for teens aged 13 to 16 and conduct stricter privacy controls with increased transparency requirements (Richard Blumenthal). |
| | |
|
<
< | The GDPR grants teens the “right to be forgotten,” which removes their data upon request. Perhaps U.S. regulators could also consider that right.
The Digital Services Act (DSA), effective as of 2023, complements the GDPR by requiring platforms to implement stricter age verification measures and prohibit targeted advertising for minors. These measures provide a precautionary approach, prioritizing harm prevention over retrospective enforcement. |
| | |
|
>
> | Protecting All: The EU’s Approach |
| | |
|
<
< | Building Better Tech for Teenagers |
>
> | The GDPR grants teens the “right to be forgotten,” which removes their data upon request. Perhaps U.S. regulators could also consider that right from teens to elders. The Digital Services Act (DSA), effective as of 2023, complements the GDPR by requiring platforms to implement stricter age verification measures and prohibit targeted advertising for minors. These measures provide a precautionary approach, prioritizing harm prevention over retrospective enforcement. |
| | A complete regulatory ban on technology is not the best way forward. Instead, promoting its constructive use, particularly among children, through education would foster a culture of critical engagement with technology. |
|
<
< | Encouraging Positive Tech Use |
| | |
|
<
< | Schools and science teachers can incorporate technological tools like Wikipedia, coding tutorials or workshops, and online discussion forums into their curricula. Additionally, teens can be exposed to open-source platforms such as GitHub or Mastodon, a social networking platform offering viable alternatives to corporate-owned social media. Encouraging teenagers to explore such positive tech tools will help them reclaim their digital identities and protect their privacy and freedom of thought. This approach shifts the narrative from technology as surveillance and distraction to technology as a tool for creative growth. |
>
> | Building Better Tech |
| | |
|
>
> | Schools |
| | |
|
<
< | Empowering Teenagers Through Digital Literacy |
>
> | Instead of EdTech? , schools and science teachers can incorporate better tools like Wikipedia, coding tutorials or workshops, and online discussion forums into their curricula. Additionally, children can be exposed to open-source platforms such as GitHub or Mastodon, a social networking platform offering viable alternatives to corporate-owned social media. Encouraging teenagers to explore such positive tech tools will help them reclaim their digital identities and protect their privacy and freedom of thought. This approach shifts the narrative from technology as surveillance and distraction to technology as a tool for creative growth. |
| | |
|
<
< | Educational stakeholders can undertake digital literacy programs where teenagers are incentivized to develop critical thinking about digital systems so that they are inspired by a shift in cultural dynamics, preserving a “cool” individuality without following influencers. |
>
> | Freedom Box |
| | |
|
>
> | People could implement a freedom box at home for enhanced privacy practices. That might allow parents to teach children early on how to safeguard their homes once they reach adulthood. |
| | |
|
<
< | Role of Parents |
| | |
|
<
< | Not only teachers but also parents can play a crucial role in setting examples of good tech use for teenagers. They can implement a freedom box at home for enhanced privacy or engage in outdoor family activities, demonstrating the value of real-world interactions. |
| | |
|
>
> | Against Harm from Other People Online |
| | |
|
<
< | Conclusion |
| | |
|
<
< | There is a need to ensure that “bad tech” does not exploit teenagers’ vulnerabilities, transform them into products, or impact their development. Aside from regulatory frameworks, educational initiatives provide the best pathways to mitigate harm while allowing teenagers to enjoy the “right” technology. |
>
> | Empowering People
Through Digital Literacy, Away from Influencers. |
| | |
|
<
< | Don’t Snap, Signal. |
>
> | Educational stakeholders can undertake tailored digital literacy programs where children and adults are incentivized to develop critical thinking about digital systems so that they are inspired by a shift in cultural dynamics, preserving a “cool” individuality without following influencers. |
| | |
|
>
> | Through Increased Real-world Interactions. |
| | |
|
<
< |
What is the difference between "teenagers" and "people"? |
>
> | People should realize how their communication via technology impacts their interactions. Perhaps, instead of calling a loved one, they could suggest meeting face-to-face. Early on, parents should raise children’s awareness of this issue by encouraging outdoor family activities to demonstrate the value of real-world interactions and steer them away from sometimes superficial online interactions.
Conclusion |
| | |
|
<
< | Is the issue about which you are here concerned whether systems are collecting data about users or whether people are behaving badly to one another? Doesn't that make a pretty fundamental difference in both what should be done to modify the systems and who ought to do it?
|
>
> | There is a need to ensure that “bad tech” does not exploit people’s vulnerabilities, from children to elders. Aside from regulatory frameworks, educational initiatives provide the best pathways to mitigate harm while allowing us to enjoy the “right” technology early on. Finally, reducing our online communication in favor of more face-to-face interactions would enable us to shift our focus from addictive and harmful “bad tech” to humans. It’s not "humans OR tech"; it’s "humans AND humans and tech." |
| | |