Social Media and Online Dating

TikTok fans and influencers, rejoice. The Supreme Court has agreed to hear the popular site's appeal of an order that it shut down or be acquired by a non-Chinese company by Jan. 19.

The court will hear arguments starting next month, an exceptionally fast track. In another break with procedure, the court did not ask the U.S. government to respond to TikTok's petition but simply granted it and put it on the calendar.

It took the court only two days to respond to the last-minute application asking it to declare that the law requiring TikTok to shed its Chinese ownership violates the First Amendment.

Interestingly, the court did not block the law while the case moves forward, meaning that it could fast-track arguments and issue a ruling before Jan. 19, the deadline that was set by the law passed by Congress and signed by President Biden.

The law came in response to fears that ByteDance is using TikTok to gather surveillance data or, perhaps, poison the minds of American youth with the seemingly frivolous content that has seized the country's imagination.

Much of what makes TikTok so attractive is the work of the so-called influencers and content creators who assemble short bits ranging from political satire to entertainment gossip. Young people feel that TikTok is "theirs" and defend it from accusations that it is part of a Cold War Chinese scheme to subvert U.S. interests. 

The law allows the President to extend the deadline for 90 days but it's not clear whether President-elect Trump is likely to do that. 

Trump's stance on TikTok has evolved over time. In 2020, during his first term, he tried to ban the app due to national security concerns but in his recent campaign, he opposed a ban, noting TikTok's popularity among young voters. 

Trump has suggested that ByteDance could sell TikTok to a U.S. company to address the security concerns. He has also criticized other social media platforms, labeling Facebook as an "enemy of the people."

A federal appeals court recently upheld a law requiring ByteDance to divest its U.S. operations or face a nationwide ban. The court said the law does not violate free speech.

With over 170 million U.S. users, TikTok has become a vital platform for news, entertainment, and small businesses. TikTok claims a month-long shutdown could cost U.S. small businesses more than $1 billion and harm free expression on one of the country’s leading platforms.

U.S. Surgeon General Dr. Vivek Murthy says social media platforms should carry a warning, much like the warnings that appear on tobacco products.

In an op-ed in the New York Times, Murthy said there is growing evidence that exposure to social media can be a mental health risk, particularly for young people. He said he will ask Congress to approve such a label, saying it would be a strong reminder to parents and children that social media platforms have not been proven safe.

“Legislation from Congress should shield young people from online harassment, abuse and exploitation and from exposure to extreme violence and sexual content that too often appears in algorithm-driven feeds,” Murthy wrote. “The measures should prevent platforms from collecting sensitive data from children and should restrict the use of features like push notifications, autoplay and infinite scroll, which prey on developing brains and contribute to excessive use.”

Murthy said he reached the conclusion that social media can pose a threat to vulnerable users after meetings with groups of young people. He said when he asked them about social media, they said it helped them stay in touch with old friends, but many admitted they “don’t feel good” when they are on these platforms. Murthy says social media platforms must address this issue.

“Additionally, companies must be required to share all of their data on health effects with independent scientists and the public — currently they do not — and allow independent safety audits,” he said. “While the platforms claim they are making their products safer, Americans need more than words. We need proof.”

Impact on mental health

Several studies in the last five years have explored how social media can affect people’s mental and emotional well-being -- especially during the COVID-19 pandemic. In a 2020 study, researchers from the University of British Columbia Okanagan explored the specific things about these platforms that can affect consumers’ happiness. 

According to their findings, endless scrolling can lead to negative emotions. When users see posts or pictures that their friends and family are sharing on social media, this often leads to comparison to their own lives, which can increase negative feelings. 

“Social media is designed to maximize profit by increasing engagement,” said Kris Perry, executive director, Children and Screens: Institute of Digital Media and Child Development. “For teens, this poses a unique risk for addictive or problematic use. Social media can also expose youth to harmful content. It can be a source of increased conflict and stress, with both family and peers.”

In an early 2024 survey, the Pew Research Center found adults under 30 are far more likely than their older counterparts to use many of the social media platforms. These findings suggest that younger Americans may be more vulnerable to social media’s harmful effect.

Age gaps are especially large for Instagram, Snapchat and TikTok – platforms that are used by majorities of adults under 30. For example, 78% of 18- to 29-year-olds say they use Instagram, far higher than the share among those 65 and older. Sixty-five percent of adults under 30 report using Snapchat, compared with just 4% of the oldest age cohort.

Florida is cracking down on kids’ social media use. 

Governor Ron DeSantis officially signed bill HB 3 into law, which tightens social media restrictions for teens. The bill mandates bars all children under the age of 14 from using social media, and all existing accounts will be deleted. 

Additionally, parents of 14 to 15-year-olds are being given more control over their kids’ social media presence. Parents are required to give permission for their 14- or 15-year-olds to be on social media sites, and if at any point they revoke that permission, the platform must delete the account. 

“Social media harms children in a variety of ways,” DeSantis said in a statement. “HB 3 gives parents a greater ability to protect their children.” 

“The internet has become a dark alley for our children where predators target them and dangerous social media leads to higher rates of depression, self-harm, and even suicide,” said House Speaker Paul Renner. “Thanks to Governor DeSantis’ signature, Florida leads the way in protecting children online as states across the country fight to address these dangers.” 

The specifics of the bill

In addition to the age requirements and giving parents’ more access and control over their kids’ social media use, the bill also requires users to verify their age before accessing explicit websites. 

To ensure users’ personal information is kept private, these sites will employ what is known as anonymous age verification. This means that the site itself won’t store users’ responses, but instead, a third-party will verify the information and discard it. 

Companies that violate the terms of the bill could be charged up to $50,000 per violation. On top of that, any minor whose account isn’t deleted before the bill goes into effect on January 1, 2025, has the right to sue the platform for up to $10,000 in damages.  

Social media platforms strike back

Though HB 3 has been signed into law, social media companies are expected to fight back. 

NetChoice, a trade association of social media platforms, has members like Amazon, Google, TikTok, X, Meta, and others. The company sued the state of Utah in December 2023 after it passed a similar bill, arguing that the law violates the First Amendment. 

Before the bill officially passed in Florida, NetChoice sent a veto request to Governor DeSantis, arguing that the bill violates constitutional rights. 

“We’re disappointed to see Governor DeSantis sign onto this route,” Carl Szabo, NetChoice’s vice president and general counsel said in a statement. “There are better ways to keep Floridians, their families, and their data safe and secure online without violating their freedoms.” 

Similarly, policymakers in Montana and Arkansas sought to pass laws that restricted teens’ social media use, and federal judges blocked both such laws. The law in Florida, which is being cited as one of the most restrictive, could face a similar test.