Highlights

• US Surgeon General Vivek Murthy calls for warning labels on social media platforms
• Concerns include shortened attention spans, body image issues, and exposure to online predators
• Congressional scrutiny heightens with hearings on child safety involving major social media companies
• Legal challenges expected based on First Amendment considerations

The debate rages on regarding whether social media platforms—specifically, Facebook, Instagram, and TikTok—are doing any harm.

US Surgeon General Vivek Murthy called for the implementation of warning labels on these apps, indicating that they might be bad for teenagers.

While it’s acknowledged Murthy has no illusions that such a label would make social media safe for youth, he believes it would increase awareness and perhaps even modify young people’s behaviours. 

He likened tobacco warnings to what such labels should do regarding the consumption of social media.

In an op-ed published Monday in The New York Times, Murthy called on Congress to pass legislation that would “shield young people from online harassment, abuse, and exploitation and from exposure to extreme violence and sexual content that too often appears in algorithm-driven feeds.”

“It is clear to me that we need to do more to make social media platforms safer for our children. We need to have safety standards similar to what we have for cars, medications, and other products our kids use,” wrote Murthy.

The warning labels are just one of several steps Murthy called for, including addressing autoplay, infinite scrolling, and data collection — but all require action from Congress.

“I think this is an issue that’s been years in the making,” said Virginia Tech Communications Professor Dr. Cayce Myers. “The question is, is that a lot of this is based on an assumption, not necessarily data that shows causation, but maybe a correlation between social media use and psychological effects. But one of the things that they’re saying is that we want to get out front of this. We don’t necessarily want to wait for more proof, we sort of have anecdotal proof and, and some scientific proof that there’s some bad effects from overuse of social media, particularly on younger people.”

Myers what Congress does with this request remains to be seen, but if action is taken it would not be as fast as with the forced sale of TikTok and expects pushback from social media companies.

“Any industry that’s going to receive a warning label typically does not want to have that because that impedes their ability to kind of promote their products,” he said. “The other thing is that Congress is divided. And, as we know, that’s harder to get legislation through.

I also would think, though, that there is some level of bipartisan appeal to regulating social media and it’s, kind of, bad effects. I mean, people on the right and people on the left have criticized social media for disinformation, for silencing certain voices.

Although they come at it from a different political and philosophical perspective, that does seem to have some level of bipartisan support it writ large. Now, does that translate into creating warning labels for social that remains to be seen.”

“I don’t know exactly how Congress will react. It’s a complicated issue,” added State Sen. Barbara Favola (D – Arlington). She is a member of the Joint Commission on Technology and Science, which is studying potential social media legislation.

She said the commission met on Monday and mentioned Murthy’s letter. “Hopefully, with the Surgeon General raising the issue there’ll be some advocacy groups and some research centers that will come forward with information that might be very useful. So, yes, it will definitely be something we’re paying attention to.”

“This is sort of a large conversation with lots of stakeholders and lots of opinions. But, we are looking for evidence-based strategies that will protect our children, but still allow for some discretion and freedom, because individual rights are part of this conversation as well.”

Macrini said while it may be an uphill battle to get legislation passed, he is OK with it.

“Because attention is being given to making sure that children are safe on the internet and that is something that should be prioritized across all levels.”

He added that if parents are concerned about their child’s social media use, he encourages them to “set open and honest ground rules and be open to having conversations about what safe social media usage looks like.”

“Also, if they are able tom have shared conversations with parents of their [children’s] friends, so that there is some consistency among those rules that the families are setting,” Macrini said.

“Because, it’s not uncommon for a situation to occur where one set of parents might have a certain set of rules for their children and then that is greatly different from that child’s best friend or something like that.

So, if parents are showing something of a unified front, that is likely going to contribute to them being able to better encourage their teens into engaging with the internet safely.”

“When I first read the article, I was impressed by the fact that this issue is receiving such attention,” said Nick Macrini, Executive Director of the National Alliance on Mental Health (NAMI) – Virginia of the request. “A warning like the Surgeon General’s warning that’s being proposed is a step in that right direction.”

“It’s undeniable, the increasing concern that we see from young people, from parents of young people regarding overuse of social media and the impacts that can have on mental wellness, mental illness,” he added.

“The increased likelihood of experiencing anxiety, depression. Comparing yourself to others, not necessarily knowing when to draw the line, or when to sort of turn off those devices and have some away-from screen time.”

“There’s no escaping the chitter chatter, even if the chitter chatter whether it’s benign chitter chatter or whether it’s more intense negative such as bullying that’s happening online,” said Dr. Yann Poncin, Yale School of Medicine Child Psychiatry Assistant Professor.

“I’d like some protections there and some consequences if social media allows the younger kids to get on. I would like schools to more readily prohibit cell phone use in the schools,” said Dr. Poncin.

“Because to some degree the cat’s already out of the bag, there’s tremendous usage among children who are having a very difficult time dealing with it,” he said. “I don’t know that parents are always aware of what their kids are doing on their smartphones.”

A warning label would help raise awareness, said Beth Houf, the principal of Capital City High School in Jefferson, Mo.

“It’s a step in helping the situation, but there is more that needs to be done,” she said.
Houf, who has also led elementary and middle schools in her career, said she’s seen the negative effects social media has on students’ mental health worsen over the 17 years she’s been a principal.

Despite the cyberbullying and the unhealthy comparisons kids make of each other on social media, they can’t seem to turn away from these platforms, she said.

“When you hear something or have a vibration in your pocket, the fear that you’re missing out on something you feel like you have to engage with—that makes it harder to pay attention in the classroom,” she said.

Anjali Verma, a rising senior at Pennsylvania Leadership Charter School, a statewide charter school, also thinks a warning label alone won’t make a big difference.

“Warning labels on media images that have been digitally modified are ineffective in preventing the negative effects of media images on body image at best,” said Rachel Rodgers, an associate professor of applied psychology at Northeastern. “At worst they actually exacerbate these effects.”

Rodgers, who specializes in body image, did a meta-analysis of the experimental literature on this topic and found that there is no benefit to body image when it comes to labels on altered photos.

“Moreover, from a systemic perspective, using warning labels allows harmful industry practices to continue rather than leveraging systemic change, and places the burden on the user to protect themselves from something harmful,” Rodgers said. “When the user is a vulnerable young person, this is not an ethical stance.”

A drastic step or not? Let’s explore it in more detail.

Longstanding Concerns and Criticism

Murthy’s call to action aligns with the long-standing concerns of youth advocates and lawmakers, especially against big social media companies such as Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, and Snapchat.

Among these are the shortening of attention span, body image issues, and exposing teens in a greater way to online bullying and predators.

Congressional Scrutiny

The January scrutiny over social media giants was only into high gear when TikTok, Snap, Meta Platforms—owners of Facebook and Instagram, with representatives from X and Discord—appeared for a hearing on online child safety before the US senators.

As much as “you’ve got blood on your hands,” Senator Lindsey Graham said, over failing to safeguard the young users from sexual predators.

Legal Challenges and First Amendment Considerations

Such a warning label would require legislation from the US Congress, though the legality of that would be challenged in court.

Claudia Haupt, a professor of law and political science at Northeastern, suggests the Supreme Court has recently been “aggressive” in enforcing the First Amendment as an argument against mandatory warning labels.

Claudia Haupt, a professor of law and political science at Northeastern, said that the Supreme Court has been “aggressive” in enforcing the First Amendment and using it as an argument against warning labels.

There’s been litigation over warning labels in the past, Haupt said, with companies arguing against putting graphic labels on cigarette cartons and signs at crisis pregnancy centers stating they’re not health care providers.

“The big problem with compelled disclosures is basically you’re telling the company to tell the consumer that their own product is dangerous,” Haupt said. “They don’t particularly like that because who wants to say, ‘The thing I’m trying to sell you might actually cause you harm.’”

She added that it’s likely social media companies would push back on a warning, if one were passed, claiming it’s infringing on their First Amendment rights. 

In the past, she said, the Supreme Court has sided with companies on this. Haupt, along with Wendy Parmet, director of Northeastern’s Center for Health Policy and Law, published research on this, looking into the court’s history when it comes to health warnings.

“Over time, the balance has shifted,” Haupt said of the pair’s findings. “When public health would win in the past, free speech would be more likely to win. That would be relevant for all kinds of contexts where speech is used to inform the public about a public health danger. … The First Amendment gets more and more leeway in the courts so it becomes more and more difficult to actually compel companies to warn about their products.”

Haupt said Murthy’s push for a label that specifically targets young people might be better received, but ultimately it will come down to the precedent set in the crisis pregnancy center case that said disclosures have to be “purely factual and uncontroversial.”

“The First Amendment itself doesn’t say anything about this,” Haupt said. “It’s just the court’s interpretation. … You can debate what’s purely factual, what’s uncontroversial.

And then we get back to what kinds of harm does social media consumption potentially cause and is that worth limiting speech? That’s the ultimate question. It’s really hard to predict what the court will do with this.”

As the discussion continues, the ultimate question remains: Is the potential harm caused by social media consumption worth limiting speech?

It’s a complex issue, and predicting the court’s stance on this matter remains a challenge.

FAQs

What has the US Surgeon General proposed regarding social media platforms?

US Surgeon General Vivek Murthy has called for warning labels on social media platforms like Facebook, Instagram, and TikTok, indicating potential harm to teenagers.

What are the main concerns associated with social media use among teens?

The main concerns include shortened attention spans, body image issues, and increased exposure to online bullying and sexual predators.

How has Congress responded to concerns about social media safety?

Congress has scrutinized major social media companies through hearings on online child safety, with representatives from TikTok, Snap, Meta Platforms, X, and Discord appearing before US senators.

What legal challenges could arise from implementing warning labels on social media?

Implementing warning labels would require legislation from Congress and could face challenges based on First Amendment rights, with courts needing to determine if such labels are “purely factual and uncontroversial.”

Also Read: Red Heart on Snapchat: What Is It And How to Unlock This Symbol of Best Friendship

Also Read: Instagram is making it easier to tag multiple people in Stories: Heres How it Will Work

Also Read: Snapchat 2023: Here’s How To Block Someone On The Platform And Other Alternatives