Meta’s big concession

“First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.”

While it turns out that Gandhi didn’t actually say these memorable words, the observation was the chestnut I thought of when I read Meta’s press release detailing how the social media company was overhauling the Instagram app for teen accounts. Its announcement is probably the closest thing to a national statement of gratitude researchers such as Jean Twenge, who have labored for years toward something like this, will hear.

Meta has outlined how Instagram will change for teens under the age of 18. First, and perhaps most significantly, all teen accounts will automatically be set to “private,” meaning that users must individually allow other accounts to follow them. Teen accounts will also have limited private messaging (only with followed accounts), automatic content screening, and an automatic “reminder to leave the app” after an hour of use each day.

All of these new features have one thing in common: They put a degree of separation between teen users and the wild and wooly mass of humanity on Instagram. This matters because, as people like Twenge and Jonathan Haidt have convincingly demonstrated, teens suffer when given unfettered access to social media. The risk of being harassed or exploited by an unwelcome account is one thing. But today’s teens are equally or more likely to feel anxiety and depression from continuous exposure to the punishingly performative nature of social media.

Instagram, by far the most “personal” major social media app, has faced a firestorm of criticism in recent years for not responding to these issues. Teen accounts are an imperfect solution. But companies that are worth billions of dollars do not limit their products willingly. This is a clear step in the right direction.

How did it happen? One big reason is that researchers like Twenge were willing to pay attention to teens and their technology when few others did. Twenge’s book iGen, which made an explicit case for a link between digital addiction and the sclerotic fragility of Generation Z, was released in the distant epoch of 2017. What seems almost self-evident now was positively controversial then, as evidenced by defensive and scoffing reviews like the one published by NPR.

The reality is that many journalists, activists, and politicians had and have self-interested reasons to turn a blind eye to the digital malaise. A cultural stigma on social media threatens the easiest and most monetizable practices of media organizations. If it’s true that we feel bad and think worse while we’re hooked into the algorithm, then some might have to ask serious questions about the social change they’ve sought through hashtags and viral posts. Most of all, a meaningful connection between the smartphone and teen struggles could implicate millions of parents who have been encouraged by Big Tech to hire its tools as babysitters.

But truth’s being uncomfortable does not make it less true. This was the point in Haidt’s 2018 jeremiad The Coddling of the American Mind (co-authored with Greg Lukianoff), which documented, among other things, how unprepared the emerging generation was for encountering a world that challenged and contradicted them. The Coddling of the American Mind further argued for putting limits on technology, arguing that teens and college students should instead experience relationships and education they cannot control with a click.

It would take several years after the publications of iGen and The Coddling of the American Mind before the United States surgeon general would declare a mental health emergency for digitally connected teens. Meanwhile, there’s been no federal legislation and no revision to the First Amendment. Instead, a growing body of research has given parents and educators the language to describe what they could see in front of them. Meta’s announcement is a concession not to political command but to cultural pressure.

Therein lies an important point. For all our angst over a post-Christian culture and the very real crises that face a secularizing and inhumane body politic, it is sometimes still possible to persuade. It is still possible to build awareness, make compelling arguments, and put pressure on billionaires and gatekeepers. It’s harder to see this potential when Christians are glued to their social media feeds day after day. The world of persuasion lay beyond the confines of the screen.

We all owe a debt of gratitude to Jean Twenge, Jonathan Haidt, and others who have weathered skepticism and dismissiveness to reveal the now undeniable threat posed by technology—especially to the young. Mark Zuckerberg’s empire can no longer deny it. The question now is, can the rest of us?