By Jack Salaki
Correspondent
Smoking was fairly normalized in 1950s America. About 45% of American adults smoked cigarettes. A 1951 British survey found that 87% of male doctors were regular smokers. At this time, there were more studies linking smoking to lung cancer.
People knew there were risks but ignored them. It wasn't until 1964 that the United States surgeon general declared that smoking is directly linked to forms of cancer. Only after this time, did the health risks of smoking begin to be taken more seriously.
As reported by the CDC in 2022, 11.6% of U.S. adults smoke. Doctors who smoke have dropped to 1-2%. Part of this massive drop in smoking wasn't just the awareness that it was bad for people. It was clear-cut regulations. The first major part of these regulations was the Federal Cigarettes Labeling and Advertising Act of 1965, which required cigarette packages to include a warning that smoking could damage their health.
After this, President Richard Nixon banned cigarette ads from radio and TV in 1971. Decades later, in the 1990s and 2000s, smoking was finally banned in restaurants, bars and public buildings and became socially taboo. It wasn't until 1992 that selling tobacco to minors was made illegal.
I believe that today we're stuck in the 1950s when it comes to social media, similar to how past generations were with smoking. The public knows that there are risks to social media but largely ignores them. Social media is viewed more as something that needs to be used "responsibly," despite an overwhelming amount of data telling us that it’s made to be addictive.
Furthermore, it doesn’t seem that responsible use is the norm. According to data from 2024, American teens are averaging five hours per day on social media. You could say that irresponsible usage is the norm.
I believe that it reflects more so on how the apps are designed rather than individuals handling their usage. Tristan Harris, a computer scientist and co-founder of the Center for Humane Technology, said, “Social media isn’t a tool that’s just waiting to be used. It has its own goals, and it has its own means of pursuing them by using your psychology against you.”
Additionally, evidence shows that a higher use of social media is hurting people in a variety of areas. Research has linked high social media use to worsening attention spans, higher rates of anxiety and depression and reduced academic achievement. Jonathan Haidt, an author and social psychologist at New York University stated, “Giving young people smartphones in the early 2010s was the largest uncontrolled experiment humanity has ever performed on its own children…we may as well have sent Gen Z to grow up on Mars.”
Haidt, who argues for social media bans for kids and teens and reduced smartphone use, has praised Australia for its social media ban for kids under 16.
In late November of 2024, Australia's parliament passed the Online Safety Amendment, which officially went into effect on Dec. 10, 2025. The law prevents users under 16 from creating accounts and restricts apps like YouTube, X, Instagram, and TikTok, among others. It doesn't punish kids for having accounts but holds companies civilly liable for enforcing the ban.
Some of the biggest critics of this social media ban have come from Big Tech. Elon Musk has criticized the Australian Parliament, stating that “it seems like a backdoor to control access to the internet by all Australians.” Meta, Mark Zuckerberg’s company that runs Facebook and Instagram, criticized the ban, stating that it was rushed and lacked sufficient evidence.
Ironically, both of these companies have been guilty of creating platforms that create problems. X, formerly known as Twitter, has seen an increase in hate speech since Musk has taken over.
Additional studies highlight that X has promoted the spread of hateful ideologies such as White Supremacy by verifying hundreds of pro-Nazi accounts. Meanwhile, a court filing published in November 2025, as covered by Reuters, from a lawsuit by school districts alleged that Meta suppressed internal research that showed that Facebook leads to worsened mental health outcomes. In these findings, some Meta employees compared Instagram to a drug and labeled themselves as the “pushers” of it.
These examples highlight a key tension. The companies criticizing regulations are often the same ones whose platforms contribute to the problems that lawmakers want to address. If social media platforms have been linked to these issues, then ignoring it isn’t the solution. Nor is it putting the responsibility on parents or even kids to moderate their issue when it is so broad. The problem is a structural one, and requires structural solutions, as demonstrated by Australia’s Online Safety Amendment.
I think it's time for the U.S. to take a similar approach. This is not to say that social media should be taken off the map entirely, but kids should be able to grow up without spending hours on addictive apps before their brains fully develop. Allowing for a time when kids can gain experiences outside of technology and develop self-control could lead to better outcomes long-term.
An under sixteen ban for social media usage would also allow for kids to develop identities outside of these algorithmically designed apps. Currently, social media platforms are drawing in such an array of people that they are disrupting real life hobbies and interests. By removing these addictive apps, it gives time back to people to explore their interests and who they really are beyond what their algorithm tells them they are.
Similar to when the government acknowledged the health risks of cigarettes in the 1960s and ‘70s, it is once again time for them to acknowledge the latest and largest health risk: social media — and do something about it.
