The city of New York is changing the lines between social media use and community health through a new law that will force social media sites to place mental health warning labels. The law is aimed at design elements, including infinite scrolling, autoplay video, and feeds that are automatically generated by algorithms and are commonly used as the most frequent justification of overuse, especially in younger users. The decision to put the blame on the platforms to admit to possible risks is a clear statement on behalf of the state that the architecture of online spaces is as important as the content they produce.
Governor Kathy Hochul announced the law, arguing that it is a step in a larger initiative of child safety in a more digital world. My number one priority since I got into office has been to keep the people of New York safe, and that should include our kids to prevent any possible harm of social media features that promote its ill-time use. Her sentiments reflect a mounting frustrations on the part of policymakers that social media is no longer a device with no specifics, but an ecosystem with real psychological ramifications that are a result of intentional decisions.
The center of the legislation is the notion of addictive feeds. Social media that use an infinite scroll, plays content automatically or uses recommendation algorithms to keep users on their site long will now be obligated to effectively notify users about potential mental health effects. The aim of these warnings is to operate, somewhat like health warnings on tobacco products or safety warnings on plastic packaging and warn people of dangers that they may not be able to observe immediately, yet dangers well documented over time.
What is especially crucial about this law is that it has a scope and a mechanism of its enforcement. It applies to the social media behavior that takes place in entirely or partially in the state of New York, despite the fact that the organization running the platform may be based elsewhere. It however does not go to the extent of accessing the platform by users who are physically located outside New York. This territorial framing indicates the effort to address the state power with the international character of the digital platforms, which lawmakers are becoming more vulnerable to.
The state attorney general has the power to enforce it through the initiation of legal proceedings and the imposition of civil penalties of up to 5000 dollars per offense. Although the penalty can sound small in comparison with the incomes of the biggest technological corporations, the symbolic meaning and the precedence of the legislation might have a much stronger influence. The concept of obligatory warnings is a victory over the companies that traditionally did not want to admit that some features of their platform can be harmful.
The law puts New York with other governments who have been aggressive in curbing the role of social media on children and teenagers. Recently, Australia has implemented a law that prohibits the use of social media by children who are younger than 16, whereas the states of the U.S. have turned towards legislation regarding data protection, transparency in algorithms, and the safety of young people on the Internet, including California and Minnesota. These actions are indicative that a new era of regulation of technology is coming, an era in which the hands-off approach of technology regulation is being phased out.
Large social networks such as Tik Tok, Snap, Meta, and Alphabet did not react to the news by providing a response instantly after the announcement. Their silence is an old trend when it comes to times of regulatory change, where companies tend to wait and see the legal ramifications before passing any public statement. Traditionally, technological firms cite the protection of parental control, choice, and digital literacy education as enough protection. The opponents respond that this would impose an unjust burden on families without considering the persuasive abilities of platform design.
The issues of mental health effects of social media have not emerged recently, although they have grown over recent years as evidence continues to mount. Research and in-house reports have associated heavy internet use on social media with anxiety, depression, sleep disorders, and body image problems in the teenagers. This form of curating content through algorithms, combined with the fact that people are continuously presented with new content, has been found to increase feelings of emotion, with little awareness of users on how much they are spending time on the internet.
These issues have spilled over into the legal field in the United States. Other school districts have sued Meta Platforms and other social media corporations, claiming that their products are a cause of mental health crises among students and a burden on learning resources. According to these cases, the platforms consciously created features that were used to take advantage of the psychological vulnerabilities, especially in young users whose ability to control their impulses and manage themselves was still in the process of development.
The healthcare fraternity has also made its contributions. In 2023, the surgeon general of the U.S. made an advisory that demanded more protective measures to guard children against the evils of social media. In late the same year, the surgeon general took a public position in favor of warning labels on social media sites, and compared this to previous public health education on smoking and alcohol consumption. The law of New York may be regarded as a direct reply to that appeal, as it puts the medical concern into enforceable policy.
In a wider context, the necessity of mental health warnings is a sign of the cultural change in the perception of the society towards technology. Previously, the main reason why social media was celebrated was that it enabled people to stay connected, democratized information, and gave a voice to the marginalized. With those advantages still intact, a less rose-coloured perception now exists that permanent connectivity might be at a cost especially when it is artificial.
Of course, the issues of the effectiveness of warning labels in practice remain unresolved. Critics believe that with time, users could be desensitized to warnings as some smokers do not notice and use labels on cigarettes. Others fear that the language used in the warnings might be so amorphous that it does not bring about behavioral change. Advocates of this view are that even flawed warnings have the potential to create awareness, open dialogues and exert pressure on platforms to rethink their design decisions.
