> And there's now a lot of evidence that social media and smartphones are the cause of the crisis There's one pesky problem with that assertion: social media i

> And there's now a lot of evidence that social media and smartphones are the cause of the crisis There's one pesky problem with that assertion: social media isn't a pill. It's not a chemical in the water, or a bacterial infection. It's not a binary switch. Social media is content. Social media is interaction. To treat such a thing as a scalar value is to have meaningless data. What are the implications of removing a child's access to social media? Does it keep them from getting bullied? Does it keep them from obsessing over their looks? Does it stop them from hearing criticism about their parent's religion? All of the above. Every one of these is a strong contributor to the mental health of children. By insulating children from their peers, you can avoid a lot of damage: damage that has become significantly more available and engaging than ever before. By insulating children from their peers, you can avoid a lot of growth: growth that has become significantly more available and engaging than ever before. This strategy is not a solution: it's a workaround. You get the pros and the cons in equal measure. Surely we can find a better way. --- The obvious problem with social media - that is actually specific to it - is engagement. That applies much more broadly to our society than the mental health of children. It applies to our political divide. It applies to our economy. It applies to every human relationship that it can. What children - and the rest of us - really need is a viable alternative. Something that their peers will follow them to. Without that, there is no solution: only avoidance.