Opinion: Utah families deserve choices for safer online experiences
I am the author and primary researcher of the book 'The Anxious Generation,' which documented the negative effects that smartphones and heavy use of social media has had on youth around the globe. The book has spent more than 40 weeks at the top of bestseller lists and has been used to motivate grassroots mobilization of students, teachers, administrators and parents toward regulating social media platforms.
As documented in my book and Substack, heavy social media use greatly increases the risk of depression, anxiety, eating disorders, addiction and an array of other harms for adolescents. Hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of American kids are being harmed by these platforms every year. One internal Instagram study found that 8.1% of users report being a target of bullying, 11.9% report receiving an unwanted sexual advance and 16.3% report seeing unwanted sexually explicit content every seven days. Those numbers rise to 10.8% reporting being bullied, 13% receiving an unwanted sexual advance and 19.2% seeing unwanted sexually explicit content for 13-15 year olds.
Despite the health costs of using these platforms, many kids continue to use them, in part because of design patterns and AI-powered algorithms that maximize engagement. In fact, one recent study found 72% of kids report feeling manipulated by social media platforms. Children are still developing their ability to exhibit self-control in the face of immediate rewards — they know that they need help to control their online behavior. Kids' inability to control their use is no accident. The platforms are purposely designed to keep kids on screens, so that the companies can sell their attention to advertisers to increase profits.
Technology can certainly provide benefits to young people, but the current business incentives and design practices of some tech companies are leading them to cause vast harm to children and adolescents. Many young people regret their time spent on social media, and feel compelled to use them because all of their friends are using them. Even as we work to reform and regulate existing social media platforms, users should have realistic and safer online alternatives. The Digital Choice Act, which is currently under consideration in the Utah Legislature, would empower users to move their data to safer alternative platforms.
Protecting kids from online harm is non-partisan and supported by the majority of Americans. Legislators have the opportunity to take clear, decisive action, joining the bipartisan movement to protect kids' mental health, attention and relationships by supporting users who want a safer online experience.
I hope that Utah's legislators will send a strong signal to the tech industry by passing the Digital Choice Act now.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hill
a minute ago
- The Hill
Summit puts Putin back on the global stage and Trump echoes a Kremlin position
In Alaska, President Vladimir Putin walked on a red carpet, shook hands and exchanged smiles with his American counterpart. Donald Trump ended the summit praising their relationship and calling Russia 'a big power … No. 2 in the world,' albeit admitting they didn't reach a deal on ending the war in Ukraine. By Saturday morning Moscow time, Trump appeared to have abandoned the idea of a ceasefire as a step toward peace — something he and Ukraine had pushed for months -– in favor of pursuing a full-fledged 'Peace Agreement' to end the war, echoing a long-held Kremlin position. The 'severe consequences' he threatened against Moscow for continuing hostilities were nowhere in sight. On Ukraine's battlefields, Russian troops slowly grinded on, with time on their side. The hastily arranged Alaska summit 'produced nothing for Mr. Trump and gave Mr. Putin most of what he was looking for,' said Laurie Bristow, a former British ambassador to Russia. The summit spectacle Putin's visit to Alaska was his first to the United States in 10 years and his first to a Western country since invading Ukraine in 2022 and plunging U.S.-Russia relations to the lowest point since the Cold War. Crippling sanctions followed, along with efforts to shun Russia on the global stage. The International Criminal Court in 2023 issued an arrest warrant for Putin on accusations of war crimes, casting a shadow on his foreign trips and contacts with other world leaders. Trump's return to the White House appeared to upend all that. He warmly greeted Putin, even clapping for him, on a red carpet as U.S. warplanes flew overhead as the world watched. The overflight was both 'a show of power' and a gesture of welcome from the U.S. president to the Kremlin leader, 'shown off to a friend,' said retired Col. Peer de Jong, a former aide to two French presidents and author of 'Putin, Lord of War.' Russian officials and media revelled in the images of the pomp-filled reception Putin received in Alaska, which pro-Kremlin tabloid Komsomolskaya Pravda described as signalling 'utmost respect.' It called the meeting a 'huge diplomatic victory' for Putin, whose forces will have time to make more territorial gains. The reception contrasted starkly with President Volodymyr Zelenskyy's March visit to the Oval Office, where Trump treated him like a 'representative of a rogue state,' said Roderich Kiesewetter, a member of the German parliament. Putin has 'broken out of international isolation,' returning to the world stage as one of two global leaders and 'wasn't in the least challenged' by Trump, who ignored the arrest warrant for Putin from the ICC, Bristow told The Associated Press. For Putin, 'mission accomplished' Putin 'came to the Alaska summit with the principal goal of stalling any pressure on Russia to end the war,' said Neil Melvin, director of international security at the London-based Royal United Services Institute. 'He will consider the summit outcome as mission accomplished.' In recent months, Trump has pressed for a ceasefire, something Ukraine and its allies supported and insisted was a prerequisite for any peace talks. The Kremlin has pushed back, however, arguing it's not interested in a temporary truce -– only in a long-term peace agreement. Moscow's official demands for peace so far have remained nonstarter for Kyiv: It wants Ukraine to cede four regions that Russia only partially occupies, along with the Crimean Peninsula, illegally annexed in 2014. Ukraine also must renounce its bid to join NATO and shrink its military, the Kremlin says. After Alaska, Trump appeared to echo the Kremlin's position on a ceasefire, posting on social media that after he spoke to Ukraine's President Volodymyr Zelenskyy and European leaders, 'it was determined by all that the best way to end the horrific war between Russia and Ukraine is to go directly to a Peace Agreement, which would end the war, and not a mere Ceasefire Agreement, which often times do not hold up.' In a statement after the Trump call, the European leaders did not address whether a peace deal was preferable to a ceasefire. The summit took place a week after a deadline Trump gave the Kremlin to stop the war or face additional sanctions on its exports of oil in the form of secondary tariffs on countries buying it. Trump already imposed those tariffs on India, and if applied to others, Russian revenues 'would probably be impacted very badly and very quickly,' said Chris Weafer, CEO of Macro-Advisory Ltd. consultancy. In the days before Alaska, Trump also threatened unspecified 'very severe consequences' if Putin does not agree to stop the war. But whether those consequences will materialize remains unclear. Asked about that in a post-summit interview with Fox News Channel, Trump said he doesn't need 'to think about that right now,' and suggested he might revisit the idea in 'two weeks or three weeks or something.' More pressure on Ukraine In a statement after the summit, Putin claimed the two leaders had hammered out an 'understanding' on Ukraine and warned Europe not to 'torpedo the nascent progress.' But Trump said 'there's no deal until there's a deal.' In his Fox interview, Trump insisted the onus going forward might be on Zelenskyy 'to get it done,' but said there would also be some involvement from European nations. Zelenskyy will meet Trump at the White House on Monday. Both raised the possibility of a trilateral summit with Putin, but Kremlin aide Yuri Ushakov said it wasn't discussed in Alaska. The Kremlin has long maintained that Putin would only meet Zelenskyy in the final stages of peace talks. 'Trump now appears to be shifting responsibility towards Kyiv and Europe, while still keeping a role for himself,' Tatiana Stanovaya of the Carnegie Russia and Eurasia Center wrote on X. Fiona Hill, a senior adviser on Russia to Trump during his first administration, told AP that he has met his match because 'Putin is a much bigger bully.' Trump wants to be the negotiator of 'a big real estate deal between Russia and Ukraine,' she said, but in his mind he can 'apply real pressure' only to one side — Kyiv. Hill said she expects Trump to tell Zelenskyy that 'you're really going to have to make a deal' with Putin because Trump wants the conflict off his plate and is not prepared to put pressure on the Russian president. Far from the summit venue and its backdrop saying 'Pursuing Peace,' Russia continued to bombard Ukraine and make incremental advances on the over 600-mile (1,000-kilometer) front. Russia fired a ballistic missile and 85 drones overnight. Ukraine shot down or intercepted 61 drones, its air force said. Front-line areas of Sumy, Dnipropetrovsk, Donetsk and Chernihiv were attacked. Russia's Defense Ministry said it had taken control of the village of Kolodyazi in the Donetsk region, along with Vorone in the Dnipropetrovsk region. Ukraine did not comment on the claims. Russian forces are closing in on the strongholds of Pokrovsk and Kostiantynivka in the Donetsk region, which Moscow illegally annexed in 2022 but still only partially controls. 'Unless Mr. Putin is absolutely convinced that he cannot win militarily, the fighting is not going to stop,' said Bristow, the former ambassador. 'That's the big takeaway from the Anchorage summit.'
Time Magazine
2 minutes ago
- Time Magazine
Why Putin Must Be Thrilled With the Alaska Summi
Vladimir Putin wanted a lot of things from his visit to Alaska. A ceasefire in Ukraine was not one of them. Throughout the summer, his troops have been grinding out advances along the frontline, and they achieved a sudden breakthrough in the days before the Alaska summit. Putin's main objective was to buy time for his troops to continue those advances, all while avoiding the 'very severe consequences' that President Donald Trump promised to impose on the Russians if they refused to call a ceasefire. It appears Putin succeeded on both counts. In his public statements on Friday night, Trump made clear he no longer plans to impose any economic pain on Russia. 'Because of what happened today, I think I don't have to think about that,' he told Fox News after the summit. 'I may have to think about it in two weeks or three weeks or something, but we don't have to think about that right now.' In Trump's understanding, two or three weeks is a malleable term, as the New York Times recently noted, 'not a measurement of time so much as a placeholder.' On the battlefield, however, it could mean the difference between holding off the Russians and allowing them to seize another region of Ukraine. The epicenter of the fighting in recent weeks has been the region of Donetsk, where Ukrainian troops were able to stop the latest Russian breakthrough. The latest maps of the fighting indicate that the Kremlin remains determined to seize that region. Another few weeks of Russian infantry assaults could achieve that goal, allowing Putin to negotiate with the U.S. and Ukraine from a position of greater advantage. 'Things at the front are going well for them,' a senior Ukrainian military officer tells TIME. 'Slow but steady.' These gains helped Putin negotiate in Alaska from a position of strength. Ahead of their talks, Trump indicated that he wants the warring sides to 'swap' territories, with Ukraine giving away its own land in exchange for areas Russia has occupied. 'They've occupied some very prime territory,' Trump said a few days before his summit with Putin. 'We're going to try and get some of that territory back for Ukraine.' Trump failed to achieve that in Alaska, and his chances of getting what he calls a 'fair deal' for Ukraine diminish as Russian forces continue to gain ground. For reasons that remain unclear, Trump said he believes that Putin wants to stop the fighting. 'I believe he wants to get it over,' Trump said. 'Now, I've said that a few times, and I've been disappointed.' Alaska marks the latest of these disappointments, but Trump has shown no inclination to change his strategy. He did not even secure some of the easier concessions from Putin that might have given the Americans something to show for the Alaskan spectacle. One of Russia's leading dissidents, Yulia Navalnaya, had urged Trump to secure the release of Russian political prisoners jailed for their opposition to the war. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, for his part, has urged the U.S. to demand the release of thousands of Ukrainian children that Russian forces have abducted from the war zone. Neither of these issues came up in the official statements in Alaska. Appearing side by side on Friday, Trump gave his guest the floor, allowing Putin to deliver another one of his rambling history lessons, a maneuver that has been likened to diplomatic 'filibustering.' When Trump's turn came to speak, he admitted that the talks had not resulted in a deal. The next step toward peace, he suggested, would be to arrange a meeting between Putin and Zelensky. But the Russian side has given no indication that it would be open to such an arrangement. Instead, at the end of their press conference in Alaska, Putin suggested in English that he and Trump would meet 'next time in Moscow,' an idea that seemed to catch Trump off guard. 'Oh, that's an interesting one,' he replied. 'I'll get a little heat on that one.' This final exchange pointed again to the paltry outcomes of the summit. The two sides had not even agreed on a location or a format for the next stage of the peace process, while Putin came away confident enough to suggest that his capital would be a fitting venue. It was hard to blame him. Given the red-carpet treatment he received in Alaska, Putin had every reason to feel like a winner coming out of those talks. He had, after all, achieved his main objective, and given nothing away.
The Hill
31 minutes ago
- The Hill
Amid bitter partisanship, permitting reform is a golden opportunity for bipartisanship
With states now fighting over redistricting maps, America's two political parties will need an opportunity to work together again. Permitting reform is one issue that is just right for this, even amidst an apparent trifecta. Strengthening American energy production has long been a bipartisan issue, as it fosters economic growth, protects national security, and increases the energy supply to drive down or stabilize utility costs for U.S. households in the face of growing demand. There has never been a better time for it. Done right, it secures American global leadership for another century. While recent debates around tax credits have made this issue seem increasingly partisan, reforming our existing energy permitting process is something on which lawmakers on both sides of the aisle largely already agree. Congress should capitalize on consensus to pass comprehensive permitting reform legislation. Debates surrounding energy tax credits in the One Big, Beautiful Bill Act, in particular, brought energy production back into the spotlight this year. Reconciliation can leave bitter feelings, but permitting reform has a chance to offer both parties something they dearly want — energy dominance, reduced emissions, fewer arcane rules, and less back and forth political games undermining the development of new energy projects. All energy production would benefit from permitting reform. America's permitting system should be a gateway for energy projects. Right now, it's a bottleneck. Unpredictable processes and delays in approval are bringing new developments to a grinding halt. With the rise of AI and a digital world that increasingly relies on data centers, global energy demand has spiked. Congress is now tasked with ensuring that American energy production can keep pace with this demand and not fall behind foreign adversaries vying for our position as the global leader in innovation and technology. But as of late, lawmakers have remained stagnant on addressing permitting reform. Yet, while demand for all energy production is on the rise, Democrats have a lot less to fear from loosening rules than they may think. The vast majority of projects stuck in grid connection queues are renewable — over 95 percent of proposed new generation capacity is solar or wind. Much-needed reform to the approval process could free up all new projects, strengthen American energy dominance and unleash clean energy all at once. Permitting reform has long been a bipartisan issue. Last year, Sen. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.), then-ranking member of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, and then-Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee Chairman Joe Manchin ( introduced the Energy Permitting Reform Act of 2024 aimed at streamlining and expediting the approvals process. While this legislation was not ultimately passed, it is a prime example of members reaching across the aisle to drive movement on this front. Most recently, a bipartisan group of governors made an urgent call for permitting reform. 'It shouldn't take longer to approve a project than it takes to build it,' said Oklahoma Gov. Kevin Stitt (R). He also highlighted the bipartisan nature of the issue, 'Democrats and Republicans alike recognize permitting delays weaken U.S. economic growth, security and competitiveness. Governors from both parties are working together to inject some common sense into our permitting process.' Voters in both parties agree. Recent polling conducted by Cygnal found that two-thirds of respondents agree that Congress should modernize permitting rules to accelerate completion of energy projects and reduce long-term cost pressures. Some conservative stalwarts will never support anything they see as helping clean energy, while some environmental activists are more concerned with punishing fossil fuel companies than they are with actually addressing climate change. These short-sighted visions represent the horseshoe of scarcity, decline and pessimism that has plagued American energy politics for decades. They believe we can succeed only by taking from the other side. America cannot afford delay. A dangerous world requires energy dominance in all industries, including new ones like clean energy. Moreover, Americans deserve to know that they will have reliable, accessible energy needed to power their businesses and residences. Permitting reform will make energy access more reliable, more abundant, cheaper and much cleaner. All Americans, and our planet, will win. The only losers will be those profiteering from political polarization. With some energy tax credits phasing out sooner than originally planned, many energy producers want to act swiftly to get new projects up and running. The permitting process, as it stands, is their biggest obstacle. As we head into the fall, our lawmakers should keep the cross-partisan opportunity on permitting reform top of mind. Liam deClive-Lowe is the co-founder of American Policy Ventures, an organization that builds projects to help policymakers collaborate and get things done.
