Nothing will change unless the parents learn to control their addiction to not just social media but the endless electronic "toys" that consume their lives. This is what their children see when they first open up their little eyes in their homes. Rather than carrying a gun in a holster we all carry a much more powerful weapon..a cell phone.Sitting in an airport or on a plane is a lonely existence ...At least Covid has a cure.
Thank you for continuing to offer solid recommendations for governing, Jake. Focusing on taking action to make American life better will improve the Democratic Party’s reputation, too. The party’s failure to act in the past — ensuring reproductive rights, health care, gun control, and others — has eroded faith in them. Democrats are the opposition party and need to earn their reputation back.
Quite right, Jake, however full revocation of Sec. 230 is impractical. Instead, add a new exclusion to the safe harbor, 230(5)(D), "any claim in a civil action with respect to any action taken, by algorithm or otherwise, to select, amplify, promote or prioritize information provided by other information content providers"
Wow! You are SO on it. Thank you for your service, both as a Marine and a legislator. In my opinion you should replace Jeffries as House Speaker. Young, articulate, clear on the problems that ail us face, a fighter, and a leader. I save every one of your posts: roadmaps for Democrats, in their sorry state of weakness, denial and do-almost nothing. You continue to develop and shape a winning platform for 2026 and 2028 and....
It’s ironic to me how you vilify China as authoritarian but want to ban anonymity from the internet. Enforceable age verification makes the internet inaccessible and destroys any right to privacy. I fail to see how the other measures you describe wouldn’t be adequate.
I just don't know. Two of my children benefitted enormously from having access to phones and a broader community as a result at quite a young age. And those internet-only virtual friendships were significant then and became even more important with age. One problem with the dialogue about cell phone use, it that it's simply written off as "on the phone." But it could be "having a conversation with a friend about something painful," or "being in a group that discusses music." Most of the discussion of cell phone and internet use is through a lens, which, like much political dialogue, forces everything to look like whatever it is that people don't like. The internet is a universe. For the majority of people there are significant benefits. I'm not denying the horror of anonymous bullying. And while I favor enormous freedom for adults, I'm not comfortable with children having access Brett Shumate's June 11 DOJ memo, that the most important thing for any of us is to defend our country from an administration that believes it has the authority to remove anyone it wants from the country, and to cravenly destroy universities out of spite. This issue of the internet is important, but what the DOJ is set to do is a putsch, and I don't think that is exaggerating.
A really good point of view however I don’t support banning smart phones in school. Unfortunately as parents we have to worry about being able to get in touch with our children God forbid a shooting happens. At my son’s school phones aren’t allowed out except at lunch so I’m not worried about it ever being used during class.
It is hard to do in this day and age but we didn't allow our son near phones, tablets, social media until he entered high school. It was very important that he learn to converse with friends and the adults around him - face to face. Now that he is in his 20s, it is clear that this has served him well.
Jake -- First guns became the leading cause of children death (of course protected from lawsuits, lol), and now AI marshals mental and psychological attacks in their formative and most vulnerable years. As you say, battling social media not easy for adults either -- reminds me of when parents tried to prevent kids from smoking as they puffed away. We can't afford to wage that long a fight or AI will win the race to dumb down our youth, as their real relationship skills never develop, and the depressed/hopeless youth wander aimlessly (sadly in dark bedrooms only lit by a smartphone). Pretty bleak -- but probably the only way to make the American people pay attention. Your online 1-1 program was a start and a great model, but we need louder voices for much of what you outlined here -- that is what we need from Congress! Both parties falsely claim they are for the future of children without touching AI -- time to fight AI before we lose an entire generation. Keep up the fight Jake!
We are facing a perfect storm: [1] Smartphones are evidently addictive to all ages whether they use social media or not. [2] Behavioral psychology amplifies impact, it is the mRNA of the digital world. [3] LLMs focus on our cognitive ability unlike mechanical advances like the steam engine.
Zuckerman sued Meta for prohibiting a browser extension that helped users filter facebook. Perhaps this is a good case to pursue -- open APIs
Section 230 is not simple. Usenet groups existed well before social media and were not a problem. This law also protects eBay. Besides, the horse has already left the barn. To the extent that it was intended to foster innovative startups, Zittrain has suggested that it apply only below a certain size. One can also consider that personalizing feeds is editorial control and therefore those who do it are publishers not forums. Then becomes is a locus for legal action but it is not clear whether we would like that outcome. Suing is post-hoc not preventative.
Section 230 can be fixed. One must distinguish a safe harbor for publishing others' content (a legitimate application of 230) from a safe harbor for the publisher's acts to promote, select, filter, and amplify. The later is a novel kind of authoring activity, even if the words selected are chosen entirely from the words of others.
Courts could find that distinction in the current text of 230, and Congress could make that distinction clear.
Thank you for your wise suggestions. My kids did not grow up with screens and now my son, with a son of his own, doesn't even have a TV in the house. My grandchild is exceptionally social and verbal at 3 with his own opinions.
Great news that the senate (at the very least) took out that AI provision. I’m going to show this to my 8 year old grandson who always asks WHY no screen time! And yes real friends are way better than chatbots!
Nothing will change unless the parents learn to control their addiction to not just social media but the endless electronic "toys" that consume their lives. This is what their children see when they first open up their little eyes in their homes. Rather than carrying a gun in a holster we all carry a much more powerful weapon..a cell phone.Sitting in an airport or on a plane is a lonely existence ...At least Covid has a cure.
Thank you for continuing to offer solid recommendations for governing, Jake. Focusing on taking action to make American life better will improve the Democratic Party’s reputation, too. The party’s failure to act in the past — ensuring reproductive rights, health care, gun control, and others — has eroded faith in them. Democrats are the opposition party and need to earn their reputation back.
Starts with good parenting.
Unfortunately, many parents lack these these skills and lack the insight on their methods to improve them.
Quite right, Jake, however full revocation of Sec. 230 is impractical. Instead, add a new exclusion to the safe harbor, 230(5)(D), "any claim in a civil action with respect to any action taken, by algorithm or otherwise, to select, amplify, promote or prioritize information provided by other information content providers"
Wow! You are SO on it. Thank you for your service, both as a Marine and a legislator. In my opinion you should replace Jeffries as House Speaker. Young, articulate, clear on the problems that ail us face, a fighter, and a leader. I save every one of your posts: roadmaps for Democrats, in their sorry state of weakness, denial and do-almost nothing. You continue to develop and shape a winning platform for 2026 and 2028 and....
It’s ironic to me how you vilify China as authoritarian but want to ban anonymity from the internet. Enforceable age verification makes the internet inaccessible and destroys any right to privacy. I fail to see how the other measures you describe wouldn’t be adequate.
I just don't know. Two of my children benefitted enormously from having access to phones and a broader community as a result at quite a young age. And those internet-only virtual friendships were significant then and became even more important with age. One problem with the dialogue about cell phone use, it that it's simply written off as "on the phone." But it could be "having a conversation with a friend about something painful," or "being in a group that discusses music." Most of the discussion of cell phone and internet use is through a lens, which, like much political dialogue, forces everything to look like whatever it is that people don't like. The internet is a universe. For the majority of people there are significant benefits. I'm not denying the horror of anonymous bullying. And while I favor enormous freedom for adults, I'm not comfortable with children having access Brett Shumate's June 11 DOJ memo, that the most important thing for any of us is to defend our country from an administration that believes it has the authority to remove anyone it wants from the country, and to cravenly destroy universities out of spite. This issue of the internet is important, but what the DOJ is set to do is a putsch, and I don't think that is exaggerating.
A really good point of view however I don’t support banning smart phones in school. Unfortunately as parents we have to worry about being able to get in touch with our children God forbid a shooting happens. At my son’s school phones aren’t allowed out except at lunch so I’m not worried about it ever being used during class.
Very good!
It is hard to do in this day and age but we didn't allow our son near phones, tablets, social media until he entered high school. It was very important that he learn to converse with friends and the adults around him - face to face. Now that he is in his 20s, it is clear that this has served him well.
Jake -- First guns became the leading cause of children death (of course protected from lawsuits, lol), and now AI marshals mental and psychological attacks in their formative and most vulnerable years. As you say, battling social media not easy for adults either -- reminds me of when parents tried to prevent kids from smoking as they puffed away. We can't afford to wage that long a fight or AI will win the race to dumb down our youth, as their real relationship skills never develop, and the depressed/hopeless youth wander aimlessly (sadly in dark bedrooms only lit by a smartphone). Pretty bleak -- but probably the only way to make the American people pay attention. Your online 1-1 program was a start and a great model, but we need louder voices for much of what you outlined here -- that is what we need from Congress! Both parties falsely claim they are for the future of children without touching AI -- time to fight AI before we lose an entire generation. Keep up the fight Jake!
We are facing a perfect storm: [1] Smartphones are evidently addictive to all ages whether they use social media or not. [2] Behavioral psychology amplifies impact, it is the mRNA of the digital world. [3] LLMs focus on our cognitive ability unlike mechanical advances like the steam engine.
Zuckerman sued Meta for prohibiting a browser extension that helped users filter facebook. Perhaps this is a good case to pursue -- open APIs
Section 230 is not simple. Usenet groups existed well before social media and were not a problem. This law also protects eBay. Besides, the horse has already left the barn. To the extent that it was intended to foster innovative startups, Zittrain has suggested that it apply only below a certain size. One can also consider that personalizing feeds is editorial control and therefore those who do it are publishers not forums. Then becomes is a locus for legal action but it is not clear whether we would like that outcome. Suing is post-hoc not preventative.
Andy Lippman
Section 230 can be fixed. One must distinguish a safe harbor for publishing others' content (a legitimate application of 230) from a safe harbor for the publisher's acts to promote, select, filter, and amplify. The later is a novel kind of authoring activity, even if the words selected are chosen entirely from the words of others.
Courts could find that distinction in the current text of 230, and Congress could make that distinction clear.
Jake,
I support your multilevel message.
Much is limited by unlimited money in electiins.
How do we change the monies that control Congressiinal votes so that voters control Congressiinal voting?
Keep up the goid work.
Thank you for your wise suggestions. My kids did not grow up with screens and now my son, with a son of his own, doesn't even have a TV in the house. My grandchild is exceptionally social and verbal at 3 with his own opinions.
Great news that the senate (at the very least) took out that AI provision. I’m going to show this to my 8 year old grandson who always asks WHY no screen time! And yes real friends are way better than chatbots!
This was written well. Do we finally have our presidential candidate?