The Kids are Fine. We are F**ked

47 States Sued Meta for Hooking Our Kids on Tech...is Reality Any Safer?

Big tech has turned the soft minds of our children to mush, apparently. We all scoff at the parents who shove iPads in their kids’ faces to shut them up at dinner, and increasingly big tech is infiltrating every facet of our lives. Kids are evermore addicted to their devices, and this was – as it turns out – by design. Meta (Facebook/Instagram) has been ordered to pay $17 billion in fines for deliberately programming their products to be addictive to children, knowing full well that it was causing psychological harm to underage users, and using their data to train its AI algorithms. It is a monumental lawsuit, reminiscent of the Big Tobacco master settlement of 1998, and while many are celebrating the great pee-pee-slapping of the big tech overlords, we don’t stop to think about what those devices might actually be protecting our children from, and the consequences for the leaders who’ve made Zombieland even worse than Zuckerbergland.

When I was a campaigning for Mayor of LA, I heard a lot of disturbing stories…the dramatic horror stories from Zombieland were legion, but there was one story that affected me more than the rest, and I still can’t shake it. A very prominent Hollywood executive messaged me to say that every morning, when he drives his young children to school, he has to shove iPads on them, simply to distract them from witnessing the horrors they had to drive past on the streets of LA. Every day, there were homeless zombies exposing themselves, defecating on the street, doing drugs, even dying in full view of his children. And because we have evil communists running our government and a neutered LAPD, he knew that his only recourse was to put blinders on his kids with the desperate hope of shielding them from further trauma. The psychological damage of witnessing death and depravity at 6 years old was more of a concern than premature device addiction.

This is the cynical gamble countless parents have to make every day in our city. Whatever damage results from consuming big tech’s work product (and there is lots to worry about), it pales in comparison to the damage we must endure under communist leadership in LA. Say what you want about the orgiastic cesspool of Facebook and Instagram, Mark Zuckerberg never dropped a coiler in front of my kids’ preschool. He didn’t cut my fire department budget and burn down my town. When do we get to sue our city leaders for intentional infliction of emotional distress? Karen Bass and Nithya Raman deliberately feed addictive behavior by distributing drug needles and crack pipes with taxpayer money. They keep 50,000 poor souls doped up while cynically laundering “homeless aid” funds to line the pockets of their crony NGOs, all while exposing our children to a traumatic public spectacle that decimates their innocence…how are they any better? When I was a kid, I wasn’t even allowed to go see Total Recall in theaters because it was rated “R”, but the X-rated horror show on our streets is allowed to play in 3D right in front of our kids’ schools? The 48 Attorneys General who won this lawsuit are eager to pat themselves on the back, but why exactly are we pursuing a state-sanctioned legal remedy for what is ultimately a cultural problem?

Nobody has to use social media, just as nobody has to smoke cigarettes; people can choose to destroy themselves, if they want. But on the other hand, we constantly legislate away personal choice and risk-taking. Why do motorcyclists have to wear helmets? If they want to risk their lives, they can do so, just as beachgoers don’t need to wear life vests. This is an age-old balancing act, where we allow government to try and do the thinking and risk-calculus for us, and determine that we are disallowed a certain level of personal agency because society believes our lives are more valuable than we do. Where do we draw that line, though?

If we determine that businesses have to put up safeguards to protect their customers, then it makes sense to do the same with tech, even if the psychological risks are less tangible and tactile as the fire risks in a physical business. If they are building the digital town square, it probably makes sense to regulate them in the same way we’d regulate the companies that build the physical town square.

Some of you may not remember this, but in the ancient days or yore, the 80’s and 90’s, we gathered at the mall. It was a place for commerce, leisure, and a sanctuary to chat with our friends. When you build a mall, there are all kinds of safeguards you have to put in place…railings, fire alarms, emergency lighting, automatic sprinklers, AEDs, etc. At many malls now, kids have to be escorted in by an adult for accountability. We all accept this regulation as a rational safeguard. But that safeguard exists not because malls are inherently dangerous, but because we live in an increasingly low trust society. This isn’t a legal problem, it’s a culture problem. But we increasingly view every cultural problem as requiring a legal remedy, and the more we do it, the more intrusive this habit becomes. We’re actually more addicted to government “solutions” than we are to social media.

Even though the Meta case is ostensibly about addressing engineered addiction and data sharing, we can’t deny that this is ultimately just an indictment of social media’s perceived negative impact on our culture. There are all kinds of addictive substances we ignore, and the subjective criteria that determines whether or not we care hinges on whether or not we think it’s deteriorating our society on the balance. But unlike with cigarettes or alcohol, social media’s negative impacts are far more nebulous, intangible, and diffuse.

Ultimately, like with most of society’s woes, there’s not really a government “fix” for these things; cultural problems require cultural solutions. America cannot sufficiently legislate a solution for kids having excess screen time. China could, but free societies can’t do this. Sure, we don’t want parents to shove an iPad in front of their kids to keep them quiet at dinner, but is it helpful to make that illegal? I suppose that any bit of friction can make a dent with these problems, and the lawsuit does seem to impose a reasonable amount of friction to the addiction.

Though the proceeds from the lawsuit are earmarked for tech-addiction mitigation programs, the fines are essentially punitive, it seems. The real meat and potatoes is in the tangible platform moderation mandates, such as an overnight block, restricted notifications during school hours, “productive pauses” after 15 minutes of continuous scrolling, parent alerts for “high-risk” interactions, and a default 2 hour daily cap (which a parent can override).

Regardless of how averse we may be to government mandates like this, we also have to ask ourselves if it’s actually good to restrict device usage in the first place. The general consensus seems to be “yes”, especially given that these tech CEO’s, themselves, infamously block their own cameras and refuse to allow their kids to use their own products; they must know something that we don’t. The counterpoint, of course, is that If we restrict screen time for kids, we are undoubtedly handicapping their fluency in the inevitable language of their future. Are we setting them up for failure as adults who will clearly operate in an increasingly digital world? What’s the right balance, and who decides that?

I generally dislike turning to government intervention…it’s one of those slippery slopes that inevitably becomes onerous and impossible to unwind. Nonetheless, there may be a public good in punishing Meta for brokering our kids’ data and making their tech addictive and manipulative. The fine is undoubtedly a drop in the bucket for them, but even a paper cut will force you to think about how you handle paper for the rest of your life. I like knowing that our tech overlords now have to at least consider our health and wellbeing in our interactions with their product…sure, they’ll just find a way to cheat or subvert any safeguards put in place, but at least they have to think about us, a little.

A lot of social media addicts justify their tech addiction by citing their business needs. “Oh, I hate social media, but I need to be on there because that’s where I get clients”. Despite how dubious these rationalizations always are, there’s at least a sliver of truth to it, and that’s enough for us. If we’re honest, we’re all a little too addicted to our phones. We reflexively lean on them to fill the boredom holes and interstitia of daily life that used to be filled with small talk and awkward glances. If we are standing in line at the grocery store for more than 10 seconds, or waiting for our Starbucks order, we automatically crane our necks down and stare into our screens. In the old days we may have simply smiled and looked around, pondered our latest movie idea, or even – God forbid – talked to somebody and met our future wife! Of course, we’d probably just waste our time on some obnoxious small talk about the weather, but at least it was a human connection, and there’s some kind of tangible value to that, right? How many soulmates have passed by like ships in the night because they were too fixed on fitness models on Instagram, and never bothered to look up and catch the awkward first glance that ultimately led to a loving marriage? How many great business opportunities were missed because you had your head in your phone instead of asking the random guy about his Jeep at the gas station, who happened to be the perfect business partner to unlock life-changing wealth?

But for every one of those, there are a thousand other couples who met on Tinder. Businesses that began with a shot-in-the-dark DM answered by a collaborator who took their brand to the stratosphere. The reality is, social media has undoubtedly expanded our reach, bridged missed connections, and launched a thousand more ships than chance in-person meetings ever could. The difference is that it doesn’t “feel” organic, because it happened online. If we’re honest, even though it’s far less stigmatized now, people are embarrassed to admit they met their spouse on Tinder. We all say that meeting people organically is better…but is it? Does it actually matter? If we leave our personal connections to organic, in-person chance…it kinda just boils down to the luck of the draw. You get what you get. What are the odds that the gal you met in your 250-student high school in Selma is your “soulmate”? There are so many fish in the sea! In a world with 8 billion people, don’t you have a better chance of finding your perfect mate when you have access to all of them? In an app where an optimized AI engine is analyzing their personality, hobbies, common interests…you can filter them to your ideal height, religion, ethnicity, music preferences; does this not give us the option for matchmaking perfection for the first time in human history? Swapping Cupid’s arrow for a laser-guided drone-launched ICBM?

But as the great George Carlin would say…too much choice is not healthy. I think this is one of the main reasons In-N-Out is so popular; no choice. Look at their menu. You get a burger, fries, soda, or a shake. That’s all. And you know what? We’re happier because of it. By default, we like to pretend that we love freedom of choice, but I don’t think we do. Options are overwhelming; is there anything more anxiety-inducing than a trifold menu with a hundred different meals on it?

I can’t recall if this anecdote were real or apocryphal, but it sounded right, so let’s go with it. At a basketball game, one night, cheerleaders launched yellow t-shirts into the crowd during halftime. Researchers asked the recipients how they liked their shirts, and they were…I believe the technical research term was “stoked”. The next time-out they launched red t-shirts into the crowd, and when they polled all the recipients after the game, the yellow shirt guys were decidedly less stoked. Why? Well they were bummed they didn’t get a red shirt. Before they knew the red option existed, they were positively thrilled and satisfied with their prize. But once they were presented with a choice, their prize lost its luster. It didn’t matter if the other option were even available to them…the simple awareness of the option’s existence was enough to eradicate their gratitude, and even make them resent their yellow ball and chain. If that weren’t a metaphor for every relationship problem in the modern era, I don’t know what is.

Sure, Tinder and Instagram DMs have made millions of romantic connections that would never have occurred otherwise…but how many perfectly stable relationships have been poisoned by the infection of choice, ushered in by these same platforms? Swiping through headshots on Tinder like some Weinstein-era producer must certainly induce a sense of Godlike dominion over potential mates, but that can be very destructive. For women, every single man they swipe on is a match, so they develop an over-inflated sense of romantic market value, becoming more and more condescending, aiming for higher level in-demand men who will ultimately kick them to the curb. Meanwhile, the 5’10” nice guy who would’ve been a faithful husband is left in the dust, and she ends up chasing the dragon into her 40s. Before she knows it, all her peers are married, and she hasn’t managed to find a stable relationship.

For men, their app presents options that feed into the worst impulses of male prey drive. “Men are only as faithful as their options”, as Chris Rock used to say. The more options that men believe are available to them, the more their eyes wander; not healthy. If we accept that monogamous relationships are an objective societal good, we can’t indulge these carnal impulses, and you can’t hunt what you can’t see; less is more.

What’s missing from all the social media debates is any regard for the agency of the kids, themselves. We have this perception that all of Gen Z and Gen-whatever-my-kids-are will indulge in every bit of tech and AI that’s available to them, without hesitation or discretion. On the contrary, a lot of kids are rejecting AI, because they crave authenticity; many actually see AI as a parlor trick that only impresses boomers. My kids love watching cartoons on their devices, but they also love chasing seagulls and splashing in the ocean even more. I don’t have to make them do it…they just crave it. We spent the last few days at Sea World and the San Diego Safari Park, and they were absolutely transfixed by the animal kingdom. It turns out that even though the tech nerds see themselves as God, no matter how hard they try, they can’t compete with the allure and majesty of God’s natural wonders. Mark Zuckerberg sank nearly $90 billion into his failed metaverse/avatar/virtual reality venture that everyone outright rejected. Humans have an addiction to real life, even if we can’t remember what real life is supposed to look like.

I sometimes come across videos of the before times…lo-fi Hi8 footage of people at 7/11 interacting with each other, smiling, engaging with strangers. Everybody is present…eyes up, eager to interact. It’s hard to describe how painful the simple nostalgia is that washes over me when I see these things. I simultaneously ache for the old days, but chastise myself for acting like a luddite. I think we can objectively say that our phones have disrupted our way of life in a way that’s not gratifying, but there are no monoliths in life, and there are pros and cons to everything.

Whenever we ponder the ravages of the nerd class, I’m always reminded of that line in Jurassic Park, where Jeff Goldblum’s Ian Malcolm cuts to the core of the destructive consequences of nerd alacrity. As he criticizes the scientists for steamrolling past any ethical introspection he says “your scientists were so preoccupied with whether or not they could, they didn't stop to think if they should” That line plays on loop in my head nearly every day. It’s perhaps the most prescient line in film history, actually; the quintessential bioethicist question of could vs should. “Could” is aspirational. “Should” is a wet blanket. The American innovator, the progressive, the autist are all in the “could” camp. The pastor, the conservative, the vigilant father fall into the “should” camp. While I’m more of a “should” guy, I am humble enough to understand that I need to shake hands with the “could” guys more than I’d like. I also need to remember that my kids may be less vulnerable than I am, and my parents need to remember that same thing with their kids.

We worry about the impact of algorithmic psychosis on the minds of children, primarily because we have a default reflexive concern about what we perceive to be the amplified vulnerability of the young, developing mind. But we don’t seem to consider the potential that algorithmic psychosis may actually have a more outsized impact on the developed mind. Boomers are getting one-shotted by AI in a way that’s hard to fathom. If we’re honest, I think we should worry more about our parents falling for online scams than anyone else. There’s an irony that Facebook/Meta is the target of this lawsuit about protecting kids, namely because anyone who’s been on Facebook in recent years knows that it’s primarily the sandbox for our parents, anyway.

The developed mind may be more stable, but it’s also more ossified, and it’s not immune to algorithmic intrusion. Once mom and dad let the algorithm inside, it seems to hijack their brains a lot more quickly and completely than it does with the kids, just like what happens with an 80 year old hip vs an 8 year old hip after a bike fall; little Jayden will bounce back up like he were made of rubber, but Doris is hospital-bound for a month. Just look at the crazy “No Kings” protestors. They’re not kids. They’re all delusional boomers who’ve had their minds scrambled by the Orange-man-bad/CNN doom loop, and they can’t snap out of it. Couple that with octogenarian recalcitrance, and you have a terminal brain rot.

If we’re going to have the nanny state intercede with big tech, we shouldn’t just limit it to children. Maybe we need to start with ourselves.

Just…not with Substack. You can spend as much time here as you’d like.