The surgeon general’s call for warning labels on social media platforms has largely been met with ambivalence as experts tout the idea as a step in the right direction but question the effectiveness of labels without more concrete action.
In an op-ed in The New York Times last week, Surgeon General Vivek Murthy called for warning labels on platforms advising users that social media is associated with significant mental health risks for teens.
These tobaccolike warning labels would remind parents and teens that social media “has not been proved safe,” Murthy said.
“I think the surgeon general’s warning is the start,” said Richard Hanna, a professor of practice in marketing at Babson College. However, he argued “it’s not enough” without action from other players.
The proposed social media warning labels come in the wake of Murthy’s advisory last year, warning that social media use may be harmful to the mental health of young people.
“I’m issuing this advisory because we’re in the middle of a youth mental health crisis and I’m concerned that social media is contributing to the harms that kids are experiencing,” he said at the time.
Both then and now, Murthy pointed to a 2019 study showing that adolescents who spent more than three hours per day on social media had double the risk of developing symptoms of depression and anxiety.
As of last summer, teens were spending an average of 4.8 hours per day on social media platforms, according to a Gallup poll the surgeon general also cited.
Warning labels on social media platforms could open up conversations between parents and teens, said Nicole O’Donnell, an assistant professor at Washington State University who focuses on health communication.
“I do think that young people and parents are kind of keenly aware of this large presence of social media in their lives,” O’Donnell told The Hill.
“We have seen some success with warning labels with tobacco products and just the fact that it gives parents a talking point to say, ‘There are concerns here, so maybe [there are] things to talk further about,’” she added.
However, O’Donnell also said she hopes that advancing conversations about children’s online safety and social media will “come hand in hand with other types of advancement, like regulation.”
She pointed to two social media laws signed by New York Gov. Kathy Hochul (D) last week, which barred platforms from providing addictive features for children without parental consent or collecting, using or selling their personal data without consent.
“If one of the major concerns is what young people are looking at, a big piece of the puzzle is that they’re looking at social media content that is curated by an algorithm for them,” she said.
In some circumstances, such as where algorithms are recommending suicidal or self-harm content, a warning label “might not necessarily be helpful,” O’Donnell added.
Hanna similarly questioned whether social media warning labels are “really tackling the right problem.”
“Is it as much the social media usage, or is it more the content? And if it’s more the content, there’s nothing in [the warning label] to moderate the content. I think that’s a bigger problem,” he told The Hill.
Murthy acknowledged the limitations of his proposed warning labels in last week’s op-ed, noting that additional measures by policymakers, platforms and the public “remain the priority.”
“To be clear, a warning label would not, on its own, make social media safe for young people,” he wrote.
He urged Congress to pass legislation protecting young people from online harassment, exploitation and abuse, as well as exposure to extreme violence and sexual content.
Murthy also called for measures barring platforms from collecting sensitive data on children and employing features that encourage excessive use.
Schools and parents can play a role by limiting children’s phone usage throughout the day, he added.
While Hanna recognized that Murthy’s proposed warning labels are a start, he warned they will be ineffective if the other recommendations aren’t heeded.
“By itself, it’s not going to do anything until the other mechanisms in the process actually jump in,” Hanna said.
He drew comparisons with previous antismoking campaigns.
“I grew up with all sorts of [messaging], ‘Don’t smoke. It’s not good for your health,’” Hanna said. “But when did smoking really start to cut back? It’s when restaurants and bars stopped allowing smoking.”
“It’s not enough if the surgeon general puts out a warning saying kids shouldn’t be using social media so much and essentially rely on parents to police that,” he continued. “Nothing’s going to change.”
“It’s not simply — here’s a warning and people will change their behaviors,” he added. “There has to be actual restrictions that will effect the change.”
Congress has been slow to take up legislation in line with Murthy’s recommendations despite mounting concerns from lawmakers in both parties.
Members of Congress have ramped up their attention to and frustration with the ways social media affects American children and teens. In a tense January hearing with tech CEOs, several senators blamed social media outlets for the deaths of several teens and adolescents and pushed Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg to apologize directly to their families in attendance.
Even so, the Kids Online Safety Act has yet to come to a vote on the Senate floor despite widespread bipartisan support.
The legislation, which has more than 65 co-sponsors in the upper chamber, would require companies to limit access to or allow minors to opt out of certain features, like automatic video playing and algorithmic recommendations, and block promotion of content about certain topics, such as suicide, eating disorders and self-harm.
Some cities and states, like New York, have acted in the meantime.
One day after the surgeon general’s op-ed, the Los Angeles Unified School District became the largest district in the nation to ban cellphones in classrooms. California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) has also come out in support of measures to restrict phone usage in the state’s schools.
