"It also creates a trap—a collective action problem—for girls and for parents. Each girl might be worse off quitting Instagram even though all girls would be better off if everyone quit."
I like this part, it is quite clear quitting social media alone is probably even worse and self-isolating than not taking part.
The solution would be to address it on a societal level, but that requires pretty strong societal/political will to put such a policy in place.
Such is the dilemma of the age, no doubt this is only one aspect, boys and even dating are affected on similar levels.
So this is the part that I've focused on too, and I don't think it's clear that it's worse, but it's clear that there are no good options; we're left with trying to identify the least worst option across a number of dimensions.
In college I chose to go to bed early and abstain from alcohol, which seems similar to this. It was definitely isolating. On the other hand, it ensured that my few friends were people who actually shared my (apparently strange) values. But I did it voluntarily. If someone's parents tried to make them go to bed early and restrict them from drinking in college, that seems like it could lead to a lot of resentment.
This has always been true though. If everyone wears makeup, then no one has gained any advantage. An agreement not to would save a huge amount of effort.
And yet, this part is inconsistent with the part the headline comes from: they argue for causation because they asked individual random students to quit social media for 4 weeks, and saw an improvement of their mental health.
Right but they mentioned those were (young) adults vs young teens. So there is a good chance they already have a solidified friend group and don't have to play the game of constantly being on social media.
That would be an interesting study. If somebody is mentally ill and just quits social media, does the isolation really make it even worse, or is it still better than staying on social media.
There are for sure still some kids that don’t use social media. So those kids won’t be completely alone with that decision.
No. It's not "quite clear" that "quitting social media alone is probably even worse and self-isolating than not taking part."
It's clear from my experience as a parent, and from the experience of many others, that that isn't an issue. The child may whine and throw a tantrum, but that's not a reason to let the child be the parent.
I took my phone away from my daughter for a few weeks because she violated her technology contract. She literally did not meet up with friends a single time outside of school during that time because it was all arranged on iMessage.
I don't regret what I did, but it definitely was isolating. Granted this is not my most socially pro-active kid (the most socially pro-active kid used a friend's phone to sign up for social media and meet up with strangers).
Was that your intent? You effectively grounded her. Actually worse because if she was grounded she could still talk to her friends. Trying to equate all "technology" and confiscate it like it's an extra nonessential thing like video games or toys is a mistake a lot of parents seem to be making in an environment where most social activity happens online and where everything is planned.
It's fine I guess if that's what you wanted out of it but it's a pretty harsh punishment all things considered. I would have taken the grounding every time.
It was not our intent; she is not our oldest and we were surprised how unmotivated she was to plan outings with friends without using the phone compared to others.
A phone is clearly a non-essential thing since she was able to function the first 13 years of her life without one. We have rules around proper phone use and there was a violation that was both significant, and a repeat offense, so the phone went away for an extended period of time.
P.S. I don't know what kind of grounding you had, but I sure as hell wasn't allowed to talk with my friends when I was grounded (by the time I got a phone in my room, it was removed whenever I was grounded).
School only covers part of the day. You don't always see all your friends (some share different class schedules). This doesn't cover the weekend. And it doesn't cover changing plans or adhoc after school plans.
I just don't see how someone can be shocked that their daughter couldn't make plans after they took away the prominent communication device everyone uses. It isn't like when we grew up and you'd call the landline or get on your bike and knock on your friend's door.
If all of them are close and regularly reach out with those methods normally maybe your child isn't as well liked as she thinks, then.
or they simply don't act the same as your sample size of 4.
I don't see how anyone can be shocked that taking away how people communicate leads to less communication. I really don't. Whether it's right or wrong or worth it is up to you and what you think is best.
Not every day of the week. And plans/things change all the time. Luckily we can message everyone in a group saying we'll be late/can't go/let's do this new activity instead. Everyone was doing everything on imessage. People don't call other's home phones anymore to make plans. Do you even own a landline?
If all of their friends are socializing mostly, or exclusively, on social media then it could definitely be worse. They could easily miss out on in-person social interactions that are planned on social media as well, or just feel out of the loop when interacting in person since their friend group is discussing something they shared online earlier.
I like this part, it is quite clear quitting social media alone is probably even worse and self-isolating than not taking part.
The solution would be to address it on a societal level, but that requires pretty strong societal/political will to put such a policy in place.
Such is the dilemma of the age, no doubt this is only one aspect, boys and even dating are affected on similar levels.