Leading ‘Save The Kids!’ Advocate Pushing Absolutely Dangerous ‘Protect The California’ Ballot Initiative That Will Do Real Harm To Children

Over the last few years we've pointed out time and time again that the evidence regarding the supposed harm" of social media to teen mental health just isn't supported by the data. But it seems it's never enough to stop savior-complex folks in the media, the advocacy community, and the political class from insisting it must be true. I know I just pointed this out a few days ago, but because people seem to keep missing it, let's do it again:

• In the fall of 2022, the widely respected Pew Research Center did a massive study on kids and the internet, and found that for a majority of teens, social mediawas way more helpful than harmful.
• In May of 2023, the American Psychological Association (which has fallen for tech moral panics in the past, such as with video games) released a huge, incredibly detailed, and nuanced report going through all of the evidence, andfinding no causal linkbetween social media and harms to teens.
• Soon after that, the US Surgeon General came out with a report which was misrepresented widely in the press. Yet, the details of that report also showed thatno causal link could be foundbetween social media and harms to teens. Itdidstill recommend that we act as if there were a link, which was weird and explains the media coverage, but the actual report highlights no causal link, while also pointing out how much benefit teens receive from social media).
• A few months later, an Oxford University study came out covering nearly a million people across 72 countries, noting that it couldfind no evidenceof social media leading to psychological harm.
• The Journal of Pediatrics published a new study in the fall of 2023 again noting that after looking through decades of research, the mental health epidemic faced among young people appears largely due tothe lack of open spaces where kids can be kidswithout parents hovering over them. That report notes that they explored the idea that social media was a part of the problem, but could find no data to support that claim.
• In November of 2023, Oxford University published yet another study, this one focused specifically on screen time, and if increased screen time was found to be damaging to kids, andfound no datato support that contention.

And now we've got Jim Steyer, who has more money and ignorance than sense, trying to quietly push a California ballot initiative that would adjust the California constitution in an unconstitutional (by the US Constitution) manner to falsely claim that social media is deliberately harmful to kids, and that people should be able to sue social media for a million dollars any time any kid anywhere is harmed" in a manner on social media that the social media company should have magically stopped.

He submitted the proposal on December 18th, right before the holidays when most people weren't paying attention, and California Attorney General Rob Bonta has a comment period open that ends on January 17th (it's initiative 23-0035, currently the top initiative) - so there's not much time. Bonta's office has supported a variety of problematic protect the children online!" laws, including the Age Appropriate Design Code that a district court has already noted was pretty clearly unconstitutional (though Bonta is currently appealing that ruling). So it seems likely that Bonta will endorse Steyer's initiative (as one does if politicians want donations from his billionaire brother).

But we should be building up a record of how completely flimsy the underlying claims in this initiative are.

Let's look at just some of the problems (there are more, but who has the time?):

The biggest social media platforms invent and deploy features they know harm large numbers of children, including contributing to child deaths.

This is simply bullshit. Time and time again we've seen that the biggest social media platforms" are regularly studying these issues and trying to mitigate harms. It's why they have trust & safety teams, a concept these companies invented for this very reason. It's why the studies that come out from inside these firms get so widely discussed, because it shows that the companies are studying this and trying to figure out how to minimize harm.

When you insist, falsely, that these companies are knowingly" harming children, it leads to way more harm. Because the message here is look the other way." Never ever do any research that might alert you to harm, because as soon as you do, some ignorant savior complex folks are going to insist you knowingly harmed kids." The end result would mean less of an effort to protect kids, because that effort alone increases your liability.

Next, the initiative would lead to just a metric shit-ton of vexatious litigation:

A social media platform that knowingly violates its responsibility of ordinary care and skill to a child pursuant to subdivision (a) shall, in addition to any other remedy, be liable for statutory damages of either:

(A) one thousand dollars ($5,000) per violation up to a maximum, per child, of one million dollars ($1,000,000.); or

(B) three times the amount of the child's actual damages.

In other words, any time a child gets bullied. Or gets depressed. Or has an eating disorder. Or dies by suicide. Or overdoses on drugs they bought via social media rather than directly from a kid at school. We'll see lawsuits. Oh so many lawsuits. An entire industry of ambulance chasing lawyers will love every minute of this. They'll sue for anything at all.

Rather than looking at the root cause of any of this - which again, studies have repeatedly shown is not social media at all - we'll get lawsuits demanding $1 million per child ever time something bad happens that they can somehow, loosely, connect back to social media.

And note the even broader language here. To become liable, a site just has to violate its responsibility of ordinary care and skill." That is so ridiculously vague that you'll be able to sue for basically anything. Lawyers will claim that any harm at all should have been prevented and the harm itself will be evidence of violating that responsibility.

And, based on what? Based on a near total and complete misunderstanding of the evidence which says that the entire premise of this ballot initiative is wrong and fundamentally untrue.

And, so, for the rest of this post, let's explore Jim Steyer and Common Sense Media, because it's worth calling out his almost Trumpian style of argumentation over this, and how it's going to lead to real harm, completely undermining whatever savior" legacy he has currently.

We've pointed out in the past that for all the good that Common Sense Media does with its ratings systems to help parents better understand the age-appropriateness of content, whenever it dips its toes into policy, it's an embarrassment. Common Sense Media's founder and CEO, Jim Steyer, (whose billionaire brother, Tom Steyer, ran one of 2020's worst presidential campaigns) has spent decades acting as the wise savior of children, who insists above all that he knows best, no matter how much the evidence contradicts his views.

If you want to hear this in action, I recommend listening to this episode of Open to Debate" from last summer exploring Is Social Media Bad for Kids Mental Health?" Steyer took the yes, of course," side and was countered by psychology professor Candice Odgers. The debate is really incredible, because over and over again Dr. Odgers thoughtfully and carefully points out that the evidence just doesn't support the claims, even if she wishes it did, as then we'd have something clear to work on. She goes into great detail on that research (as we have over and over again). And Steyer repeatedly loses his cool and basically yells no! it's just not true!" without being willing to cite a single piece of evidence beyond his own personal feels.

Here's just a snippet from Odgers' opening remarks, where you'll note how clear and thorough she is, citing actual reports and data:

I think it's important for everyone in the room to know, I hate social media. I don't use it that often. I'm not a heavy user, not a fan. But I became an expert in social media and digital technology because I followed kids to the spaces where they spend their time. I wrote a report about three months ago for the National Center for the Developing Adolescent arguing for regulation around privacy, saying that social media tech companies needed to come into the Public Square and design their Tech in ways that supported our kids right?

So there I am.

But I'm standing up here tonight as a psychologist and for the last two decades of my life, I've studied kids mental health. Since 2008 I've actually followed them around on their phones - I know it sounds a little bit creepy - but tracking what they do online, what they do in school how much they sleep, how their school day went, experiences of discrimination, experiences of Mental Health.

And I'm here to tell you tonight Jim I told you in the report, but I'm here to tell you tonight that the story you're being sold about social media and our kids' mental health is not supported by the science.

Now don't take my word for it. There have been thousands of studies on this topic. They're over a hundred meta analyzes and narrative reviews. We did one in 2020 the most recent one was done at Stanford it analyzed 226 studies. Look at the association between social media and well-being. You know what they found.

The association was indistinguishable from zero.

There was no effect. And this is not an uncommon finding. Sometimes we find that social media is associated with symptoms of depression; really tiny associations. Now the important part about this and you're all sick of hearing correlation is not causation. But in this case, it's actually really important, because I think we're drawing the arrow in the wrong direction.

And why I think that is if you follow kids over time - there's a great study at 1700 kids in Canada that's done this - followed their mental health, youth mental health, their social media use, and what you find will first for boys: there's nothing. No association.

For girls there's an association that's there. But what happens is girls are experiencing mental health problems that predicts the type of social media they use; their social media use down the road but not vice versa. Social media use does not predict future mental health problems.

There's a lot more than just this (and note that all of the studies Odgers is talking about appear to be different studies than the ones I've been talking about!) At this point, you have to be willfully sticking your head in the sand and deliberately ignoring the science to claim otherwise.

So how does Steyer respond? With bluster and anger and the kind of ignorant confidence of a rich man with a savior complex who just insists that Odgers must be wrong because he knows what's true.

Look I have great respect for Candice, but the truth is, no that that simply not correct. A lot of this is just language, guys. Look and everyone out here knows this, right? What Vivek is saying, the Surgeon General, and what I'm saying is that we know that for in many many cases about in the youth Mental Health crisis that social media, various forms of it, are a major contributing factor. I'm a professor at Stanford, but I'm not an academic Candice is an academic - who we hire, by the way, and who we have great respect for - but she's absolutely... she's framing it in really narrow terms that academics and researchers use. By the way. I don't even agree with some of her basic analysis, some of the research. And we will continue to hire Candace. But at the bottom line is this social media is a huge contributing factor.

I mean, it's borderline Trumpian.

The host tries to clarify what the fuck Steyer means when he says Odgers is using narrow terms" and his answer is borderline incoherent, and does not answer the question. He claims it has to do with how academics have extremely specific characteristics in order to say certain things, because that's how you actually publish studies etc. So it's very difficult though to draw demonstrable perfect conclusions."

Which is, um, not the point. No one is saying that they haven't been able to draw demonstrable perfect conclusions." They're saying that they have been able to draw conclusions and the conclusions say that social media isn't causing mental health problems (and, if anything, the impact may be in the other direction).

The entire discussion goes on like that. Odgers over and over again points to demonstrable conclusions" and Steyer gets angrier and angrier because he, the rich man, knows what the answer must be. So Odgers then points to a few more studies that debunk Steyer, and he practically yells at her (and despite earlier claiming he wasn't an academic, now claims he is - which is a separate problem for Steyer. In another recent radio interview Steyer claimed that he is a 1st Amendment law professor," which he absolutely is not. He was listed as an adjunct professor in the school of education).

I don't agree with this at all. And I am I consider myself to be a scholar. I know the research, not at the level that Candice does, but I just think that's basically an overly narrow framing of all of this. I have no issue at all as a professor and also as the head of the biggest kids advocacy group saying that the evidence is there now. The key though is that the evidence is not that it's the only factor and it's different in various kids, and that's very very important. And so I could list the number of studies if you want me, that would disagree with Candice's assessment. Because there are plenty of studies out there that show that show the oftentimes, it's more correlation than causation. So I could go through a list of studies as well from various experts wherever...

But of course, he doesn't. He just insists he has counter studies. Odgers points out that she would love it if her were right, because her whole focus is on helping kids deal with mental health issues, and if it really was social media, that would give her an easy tool. But the evidence just doe snot support it. And again, Steyer snaps at her.

That would be an aspect that I would tell you that just that's just too simplistic an explanation guys. I mean and I'm being serious, I say with great respect for Candice, but I will tell you researchers are doing the public and the country a massive disservice with this nitpicking stuff and being so wishy-washy, and they have been for years. Okay? And it's a significant problem that the researchers have been so narrow in the way they frame it. Even the most intelligent thoughtful ones like Candice.

Over and over and over it's the same thing. Odgers, the actual academic who has devoted a large part of her professional life to studying this issue, points out what the evidence says, and Steyer gets all angry and shouty about how it's obviously wrong and that she's nitpicking" or framing things narrowly." He says he can produce studies, but he doesn't.

There's also this somewhat incredible exchange later in the debate (kicked off by host John Donvan) after Odgers (again!) goes through a bunch of detailed studies and more or less points out that it's unfair for Steyer to keep implying she doesn't care about kids when she's literally trying to solve hard problems by actually understanding the data:

Donvan: I've been hesitant to say this because it would sound like I'm taking sides. I'm definitely not. But I brief for this, and our team put together several meta studies of the studies and the overwhelming majority of them agree with Candice's take that - and I understand you're saying that this is maybe a problem with how they're focusing the studies - but that they're inconclusive on the issue of whether...

Steyer (yelling) because they're calling for pure causation! It's a different way of interpreting it John! You're correct about the broad picture...

Odgers: (jumping in to point out that Steyer is just wrong here): John I'm talking about correlational studies find zero association (laughs because this is all so ridiculous)...

Steyer: (still with a raised voice) I'm sure that I find some! But... you said about what the public thinks. You know why? Because they know it's right. if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck it is a duck and that's what the situation is.

Donvan: Is that science? The duck?

Odgers (laughing again): No! I'm gonna study that.

Just look at how crazy this exchange is on multiple levels. Steyer (again) refuses to provide any evidence and relies on raising his voice, insistence that he must be right, or that the public believes" it's right, and then even pulls out the walks like a duck" argument.

But, more importantly, there's a real tell in that exchange. Steyer admits (falsely, as Odgers points out) that correlational studies that support his argument are enough, and that the demand for actual causation is somehow too narrow" or a problem.

But it's not. That's the whole fucking point of doing science, Jim. As Odgers pointed out (if Steyer had been paying attention rather than getting all shouty), there's real concern that the people who focus on correlation over causation are getting the causation backwards.

Remember that Journal of Pediatrics study we pointed to a few months back? What those researchers found was that it was the lack of spaces where kids could be kids" (without parents hovering over them at all times) that the data showed was the largest factor contributing to mental health problems in teens (and they also pointed out there was no evidence that social media was contributing to the problem).

Once you understand that you realize how important causation is here, because the data suggests (Jim!) that the reason some kids flock to social media is that they have fewer and fewer spaces to interact with their peers and to just be kids. And thus, the reports (which Odgers also highlighted) suggesting that the prediction runs the other way (i.e., those with more serious mental health problems retreat to social media) suggest that they do so because they have nowhere else to turn. Nowhere else to get help. Nowhere else to just be themselves.

And it's savior complex folks who insist that kids need to be monitored and restricted 24/7 that have created that world and helped to create these very problems.

Yet people like Steyer refuse to see this and just keep getting crazier and crazier. In the debate, Odgers and Donvan point out that this seems like the same moral panic of days gone by: rock and roll, television, comic books, radio, cable TV, pinball... all were said to melt kids' brains. And Steyer loses his shit yet again and,, in a moment that really drives home his lack of self-awareness, claims that only people who aren't well informed would say this:

That is simply not correct! And and the answer is to draw a comparison between television and social media is like a joke to me. Having said it, many people say what you just said, John. They tend to be not familiar with what's really going on with the issue...

Just incredible.

There's a lot more and it's all the same. Odgers, the actual expert, presenting actual evidence and explaining things with nuance. And Steyer, the overly confident savior, insisting that everyone else is wrong and only he knows what's really happening.

And, normally, we'd expect common sense (see what I did there?) to win out in the end, but this isn't about common sense. As we've discussed before, California ballot initiatives are a ridiculously dangerous tool. As long as you have enough money and the ability to frame a moral panic the way you want to, you can get the votes.

Who doesn't want to protect the children?" And Steyer has the money at his disposal to get the signatures to get this issue on the ballot, and can easily frame it (as he himself admits) that the public perception here of harm from social media to kids is the reality - even as the actual data keeps saying they're wrong.

So please consider commenting (politely please!) on Bonta's review of this awful state initiative. I doubt it will stop the initiative from going forward. Chances are this thing has a real chance to get added to the California constitution, despite the fact that it's built on a foundation of debunked moral panics. And, even worse, as we've seen, once a California ballot initiative goes through it's nearly impossible to fix.

Steyer's plan here will do real harm to the very children he wants to claim he's saving. Please speak out to stop this attempt to capitalize on an anti-intellectual moral panic to allow someone to pretend he's helping to save the kids while actually doing very real harm.