responsible

  It is being reported that school age children are being affected by social media in a negative fashion. I'm old enough to remember when the same thing was said about television, you know, the boob tube. Of course, back then a boob was someone that was dumb. It wasn't referring to a tube top. But the fear was that it was causing the kids to be lazy by lying in front of the television all day. They were probably going to go blind as well. Television broadcasting companies' self-imposed some form of censorship back in those days. Prime time television was certainly different than Saturday morning programming. Still on Saturday morning they did target children with the advertising of products. But they kept what was felt to be adult themes out of the shows. That stuff was reserved for prime-time television and caused quite a stir on occasion. Peyton place was simply scandalous! Today at any hour of the day there is programming that makes that show look like a Bible class. 

 Today the concern is the children are developing all sorts of mental issues from the use of social media. It is leading to depression, self-esteem issues, and in extreme cases suicide. That is all a result of the social media companies providing "likes" "shares" and emoji's to entice the children to interact. The problem is not everyone is being supportive of each other. Like the old-fashioned bully on the playground there are bullies on social media. The children are becoming addicted to social media! That was the problem with television too, getting addicted to it, but there was a cure. Mom or Dad simply turned it off! It wasn't interactive either, so the situation is a bit different. No one was blaming the company however. 

  I understand that it is quite a bit different today with social media. Unlike my television it is fully portable and available everywhere at any time. Parents can't simply turn it off. Parents can restrict what devices the children have access to however, at least when they are very young. Yes, children have to learn how to use those devices, learn to use the worldwide web and be proficient using technology. For that reason, they need to be exposed to that stuff. Really not that different from years past when children had to learn about using a gun. It was essential to their survival. That wasn't the case when I was little, we had the supermarket, but I was still exposed to all of that and taught to use it responsibly. No one blamed the Diasy BB gun company if I shot my eye out. No one blamed the liquor company if I drank alcohol either. No, I was responsible for those choices. Even though there were laws passed regulating all of that, age restrictions, children still used those products. Also, the parents were held responsible for whatever dumb stuff there kids did. It wasn't up to the maker of MD20/20 to clean up the mess I made when getting sick on that product. It wasn't the fault of Ford motor company if I dented the car. 

  I'm not familiar with all the terms of usage associated with each social media company. Last I knew Facebook said you had to be eighteen to have an account. No different than having to be whatever age it is to buy a cigarette these days. Can you really blame Facebook if people lie about that? Yes, people lie about that. With alcohol, cigarettes and guns you can hold the seller responsible. They have personal interaction with the purchaser and should be checking. That's fair enough in my estimation. But what about this online stuff. Is it reasonable to expect Facebook to check that each user is the appropriate age? How would they even do that? 

 Well, that is where some want the government to intervene. Government control of social media platforms. Sounds an awful lot like censorship to me. What of the first amendment. Are we going to make exceptions to that? You can't holler fire in a crowded movie theater but that isn't preventing you from doing that. You are free to do that as long as you realize you will be held personally accountable for that choice. The same concept has been extended in recent years and defined as hate speech. You will be held personally accountable for that choice of words. Are those exceptions to free speech? It's a bit of conundrum isn't it? You could argue the FCC restricts freedom of speech as well. On the other hand, it has been decided that you can burn the flag, stomp on it, throw it on the ground and that is protected speech. You can parade down main street dressed in leather being lead on a chain while being whipped by a dominatrix and that is protected. No government intervention in any of that. Drag queens can read sexually suggestive books to kindergartners and that is free speech. 

  In my way of thinking if the government can tell a social media platform what they can or cannot do that is control of the platform. The issues aren't the content but the potential influence that platform may have on those using it. Same as kids watching too much television. Is it wrong for social media companies to show likes? Is the objective then to make the platform totally innocuous. Good luck with that. I can post a picture of rainbows and unicorns and cause quite a stirring of emotions. I can post a picture of a young children holding an American flag and incite a great deal of hate speech towards that. Just how would you remove all influences? Yes, I believe the government can impose certain restrictions and guidelines on products and services. I don't believe those providing the product or services are responsible for what people using them do. It boils down to a simple question we were all asked as a child, "if little Billy jumped off the bridge would you do that too?" Yeah, you are responsible for your choices. If you are too young to understand that your parents or guardians are not! If I cut myself with a knife, it isn't because the knife is sharp! The fault lies with my own choices. I decided to use the knife. The knife did exactly what it was designed to do. No need to redesign the knife, just learn to use it responsibly.