You could argue that any mass communication development over history has been accused of the same thing. Printing, cinema and broadcasting revolutionised how people communicate and engage with each other, for better or ill. Comics and penny dreadfuls were accused of the same thing.
The internet has revolutionised how we engage over the past 20 years. A lot of that is positive, but the key difference for me is the interactivity, speed and the way platforms can be manipulated. Facebook when launched felt like a nice way to keep in touch with people, especially abroad. I had no sense of the actual mechanics of assembling massive amounts of data and the implications of that. It's pretty clear now! The outrage over digital ID is interesting because the privacy issues that appear to concern people about it are dwarfed by the data that we voluntarily give to private companies every day.
And of course the young 'uns think Facebook is for oldies because it is long form and boring. It's no surprise that the snappy, short intense bursts of tik tok or X dominate.
So two issues are at play: the potential for addiction and changing how people consume info (less reading of books and long form articles); and the weaponisation of social media to spread misinformation and harvest data
On the first one, I think it's legitimate to restrict phone use in schools and I think parents should try to keep on top of excessive phone and social media usage. It's also possible that people might tire over time of the main platforms. And teaching kids to appreciate the long form, be that books, magazines, films etc . and developing critiquing and analytical skills is essential.
The second issue is much more thorny. Much of social media is free to use, in the sense that you don't pay for it. But the cost is in the information you give up and in inviting targeting by advertises and activists. While in some cases you can't avoid it ( some services are only available on line) we mostly opt into it. And the date is so valuable that it's no coincidence that the tech companies are amongst the richest in the world.
Supporters of the current state of social media point to the democratisation of access to information dissemination. Gone are the days when 'the elite' controlled access to what was published and widely disseminated. But in the old days there were controls: editing, journalistic standards, legal constraints and the potential for being sued. Very little of this applies to social media and is largely unenforceable. No serious paper would have run with the Euan Blair to operate the UK digital ID card. Yet it was presented here almost as fact.
And this is the crunch issue. How do you regulate what people post without crashing into censorship issues? How do you make people accountable for what they post? And does it make any difference in a world of bots and bad actors?
I wish I had an answer.
One final point. Is there a danger that we can just be a bit judgemental in all this. A kid with their nose in a book will be viewed more favourably than skid looking at their phone. But if the book is a Jackie Collins novel and the phone gives access to an Unherd article...
