The United States Senate Commerce Committee's recent markup hearing discussed a package of kids’ online safety bills that are good politics but bad policy. Despite the public narrative, the underlying research on social media and mental health is mixed and weak – at best. That has not stopped a bipartisan supermajority of politicians from cherry-picking evidence to use as a convenient framing device to motivate their favored political priorities.
The committee’s vote to advance the controversial Kids Online Safety Act (KOSA) to the Senate floor for a potential vote is a reflection of how senators have framed the problem. Look no further than Senate Commerce Committee leadership. Chairman Ted Cruz (R-TX) has cited online screen time as one factor contributing to depression, anxiety, and other mental health issues in previous hearings, and in the most recent one advocated for both the SCREEN Act and KOSA. Ranking member Maria Cantwell has been even bolder, claiming in past hearings that “study after study” demonstrates that social media use is “associated with higher rates of anxiety, depression and feelings of social isolation” in young Americans.
In reality, the markup was mostly a formality. Most members already had their mind made up, informed by a belief in a body of research that does not exist as they see it. Their outlook on cause-and-effect is not unique. It is a worldview widely shared by pundits, talking heads, many members of the committee, and most of Congress. It is popular and convenient. However, it is not supported by the evidence.
As a recent American Consumer Institute report explains, social media policy debates turn on a mix of inconclusive, misunderstood, and misapplied research that demonstrates how little America’s political class truly understands about the technology they are trying to regulate. A multi-year pattern of literature reviews and meta-analyses continuously finds only weak and mixed results. Nearly all the studies, both positive and negative, find only small effects. The conclusion is simple but controversial: social media use likely matters much less than many think.
But more concerning is that the politicians debating these rules and regulations have repeatedly ignored or missed the many policy recommendations from researchers who call for caution and more research over regulation. One study found the current evidence so “weak and inconclusive” that the researchers suggested that any policy restriction or ban be reconsidered until research becomes more definitive. Another found many similarities between online and offline risks, suggesting that Congress need not reinvent the wheel with entirely new policy approaches. Even the studies that have found negative effects have cautioned against blanket restrictions like those that the Senate Commerce Committee is considering.
Politicians want simple and tight answers to complex and unsettled phenomena, leading them to treat mixed evidence as settled science.
Many states have already gone down this path with bills of their own – and it’s been a mess. Many companies have over-censored user expression over fears of legal liability. Others lack the instruments to actually implement the laws, leaving them in legal limbo. All of this is on top of the constitutional questions state policies have raised about how they fit within the First Amendment. All traps the Senate Commerce Committee risks falling into if it continues with these policy proposals.
The truth is that mental health problems are highly nuanced and complex. The research is still developing. Scapegoating social media only distracts from the immense task at hand. And any solutions are likely to leave the issue unaddressed, all because politicians have failed to listen to what the researchers – and the evidence – are actually saying.
Fortunately, not all hope is lost. Politicians may be over-indexing on social media, but they are right to focus their time and attention on involving parents. Unlike the weak state of the social media literature, policymakers can rely on areas of overwhelming agreement while empowering parents. Here’s how. Family environment and sleep have been important factors that influence kids' mental health. Both of these are better addressed by parents who can more easily spot changes in behaviors or routine habits that need correction.
This is why policy solutions should focus on providing parents with educational programs to spot changes in their kids’ behaviors, how to address them, and where to look for help. Other factors such as family history of mental health or socioeconomic status, both great predictors of poor mental health, are harder to address but should also be part of the policy conversation.
The Senate Commerce Committee is far ahead of the evidence – and that is not how prudent policy advances. It’s how you make mistakes and wish for do-overs. So, as KOSA moves to the Senate again, legislators should ask whether the same evidence they are considering would survive the same scrutiny it has in every other field. America’s kids deserve at least that much.
