There are various critics who have concluded that high doses of dopamine are not so beneficial. The potential for harm is greater in adolescents and younger. An interesting overview is Neurobiological risk factors for problematic social media use as a specific form of Internet addiction: A narrative review, World J Psychiatry. 2023 May 19; 13(5):160–173. Another worth a read is Social Media, Dopamine, and Stress: Converging Pathways, Dartmouth Undergraduate Journal of Science, August 2022,
Some would nonetheless argue that the jury is out on dopamine. Nonetheless, the National Institute of Health has published an overview on self harm that is interesting reading. This is beyond the attractions of dopamine and more pernicious. See The role of online social networking on deliberate self-harm and suicidality in adolescents: A systematized review of literature, Indian J Psychiatry. 2018 Oct-Dec; 60(4):384–392. .
Despite the protestations to the contrary, there are some scientists who believe there is a potential for harm and self-harm connected to social media. If you have not engaged in social media, know that the world can be one of great positive reinforcement and engagement. It can also be an amazing pit of despair into which self-confidence, spirit, and aplomb can be dissolved in the acid of vitriol, groupthink, and mob mentality.
These latter influences are sometimes driven and enabled by keyboard trolls. The trolls lurk in their shadows, cloaked in anonymity, and throw verbal feces at others in hopes of boosting their own feelings of self-worth. If they join a majority in some escalating storm against some victim, their dopamine rewards fuel their frenzy as sure as blood in the water excites sharks.
Australia is reported recently to be set to be "the first" to try preventing minors from using social media. It applies to all who are under 16, and the New York Times calls it "one of the world’s most comprehensive measures aimed at safeguarding young people from potential hazards online." To be accurate, this is not a ban on minor use. It is a ban on minor user accounts.
What is the difference? Well, it is illegal for children to drink and smoke. Those prohibitions include a preclusion on underage purchasing (an account) and use. So if you give your child alcohol or cigarettes, you might face penalties. That combination is a ban on use.
The new Australian law is a prohibition on purchasing (an account; the "purchasing" is a euphemism. No one buys social media, it is free. That is because you are not their customer, "you are their product".
The British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC), in the lead-up to Australia's vote, reported that some social media argues it should be exempt. LinkedIn, for example, essentially argued that it is too boring to merit inclusion in the ban. Stated otherwise, "it is too dull for kids to warrant its inclusion." Does it matter? Is that like allowing low alcohol beer or "light cigarettes?" The fear of tobacco reached such a point that they outlawed cigarettes made of candy.
Great Britain already has some constraints regarding adulthood and social media. Those may militate against the conclusion, above, of Australia perhaps becoming "first." Regarding the earlier British efforts, the BBC reports that recent surveys (brace yourself) support that some people actually lie about their age to gain access to various content that is age-constrained. As Daryl Hall & John Oates begged us:
"Say itSay it isn't soSay itSay it isn't so"
Say It Isn't So (RCA Records, 1983).
Seriously, kids lying about their age? This strains the imagination. A newly released survey, conducted by the UK media regulator, indicates 22% of eight to 17-year-olds lie about that they are 18 or over on social media apps. Despite Britain's Online Safety Act (OSA)(which is not in "full force" until 2025, back to that "first" debate),"22% ... lie that they are 18 or over." Who could have seen that coming?
Of course, any glass can be half full or half empty. It is encouraging that 78% of the 17-year-olds at least deny lying. That does not necessarily mean that 78% are not doing so, but it is encouraging nonetheless.
The British Office of Communications (Ofcom), similar to the U.S. FCC, has the authority to fine social media companies that do not effectuate the 2025 OSA requirements. Fines may be as much as "10% of (a social media company's) global revenue." Note that phraseology. This does not apply to "profit" but to "revenue." It is not their British revenue, but "global." Such a fine might be crippling.
So, there is a beginning here. Some legislators are striving to limit the exposure of youth. The steps may empower parents who want to act responsibly. But there is little to deter a parent who is seeking a moment of peace from giving any child full access to a panoply of content. The parent might as easily provide social media access as any other potential harm.
Before we mount our steeds (high horses) let's all admit that parents have been distracting children with content since Adam and Eve had that run-in with a serpent. This has included books, toys, games, video games, the Internet writ large, and now social media. This is not new.
Nonetheless, the content of those books, toys, and games (even the early video games) was much easier to review, monitor, and police. The Internet and social media are a world wide waste (www) of potential content that stretches from benign to hilarious to hideous to worse. The potentials are vast, the harms are indescribable, and the road back from unlimited access for children will be long.
England has taken a step. Australia follows suit. Florida enacted Senate Bill 3 in 2024 (SB3). This will be effective January 1, 2025. Florida will help lead the way to a contemplative, and considered course to better protect children in our society, our state, and eventually perhaps elsewhere.
In the process, perhaps, we will all learn how to better protect ourselves from the dopamine urge, the boredom of LinkedIn (LOL), and the array of inappropriateness on the world wide waste.
