The impact of online media on minors’ mental health

The Kids Online Safety Act was approved late this summer by the U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation.

The act was reintroduced in May and imposes a responsibility on covered platforms, ensuring efforts to protect minors. It offers parents the resources to protect against online threats. Specifically, it requires personal data protection, annual risk assessments, and the disabling of addictive product features and algorithmic recommendations.

The requirements address the media’s impact on mental health. The hope is that with such legislation, children will experience less negative influence and damage to their emotional, psychological, and social well-being.

“It requires social media platforms to prevent and mitigate harms to minors, including the promotion of self-harm, suicide, eating disorders, substance abuse, sexual exploitation, and advertisement of unlawful products for minors,” Senator Joe Manchin said.

One may wonder why such an act is necessary when parents act as a monitor. Stacy Sager is a mother of two children, ages five and six, from Chicago.

“It is extremely difficult to monitor my kids’ media usage,” Sager said. “I give them screen time on YouTube and even though we sit near them, inappropriate ads still emerge.”

“All my friends who are parents share similar views,” Sager said. “They say that their kids go straight to the iPad once they get home and they could sit there for hours. We all fear for the moments when we have to walk away, leaving them unsupervised.”

SU professor Anne Osborne teaches Race, Gender and Media, a class in which students learn about the media’s impact on society. The Kids Online Safety Act is an effort of attention toward media impact. Osborne emphasized the importance of media awareness.

“This act is a move in the right direction to recognize the power of media,” Osborne said. “This legislation proves that people are actually paying attention to the impact our society is facing.”

“We will all go out into the world and become media producers,” Osborne said. “So, it’s important to be thoughtful about what those effects can be.”

Within discussion of the act, an analysis of Generation Z is notable. Through looking at the mental state of Gen Z, having grown up with the rise of social media, one can judge the necessity of this act for the upcoming generation.

“My students are more anxious and disturbed and it is easy to see why,” Osborne said. “They are incredibly image conscious and aware of how they present themselves, which creates stress. Had this bill been in place during their youth, perhaps these effects wouldn’t have occurred to such a severe extent.”

While the act is a step in the right direction, many also see flaws within the legislation.

“The bill is a great idea but I won’t trust it until I see societal change,” Chicago school psychologist Diana Cohen said. “Kids find ways around everything. Within the school system, we filter, but we can only do so much. It’s very limiting and once kids leave the school, it’s whatever their parents want.”

In August, Chicago Sun-Times journalist Jacob Sullum reported, “The unintended but foreseeable results are apt to include invasions of privacy that compromise First Amendment rights and a chilling impact on constitutionally protected speech.”

Cohen supports government responsibility to address the media, however she questions its effectiveness and compliance with the First Amendment, as well.

Parents like Stacy Sager just want their children to grow up with productive media exposure.

“I hope this act can provide parents some relief,” Sager said. “So we don’t have to worry about negative, online harm so much.”