My InBox lit up with this eye-catching headline from Medium yesterday::
Jennifer Garner Can Fuck Right Off
Normalize Calling Out Child Abuse Even When Hot People Do It
The piece goes on to attack Jennifer Garner for the recent revelation that she does not allow any of her three children to be on social media. The author labels Garner's embargo as "child abuse" which I think is a bit over-the-top. I mean, even if you disagree with the parenting choice, it feels like calling it "child abuse" is a stretch.
By this logic, would we then call Mormon parents who forbid their children from drinking alcohol and caffeine child abusers by virtue of the fact that they've cut their kids out of a life experience commonly shared by everyone else they'll meet when they go to college? Is the parent who decides that their kid will not be joining all the other kids on a Spring Break trip to Florida because she doesn't want her children to set foot in that state also a child abuser?
Look, parents have the right to limit the experiences of their children. I don't think what's going on in Florida—taking one family's limits and extending them to the whole school community—is fair or justified. But at home, they have the right (and the obligation) to make the rules and enforce them. Usually such choices are made because the parent believes they are protecting their child from a malignant influence. Some parents try to prevent their kids from reading Judy Blume or Mark Twain or Penthouse Magazine. These wouldn't be my choices. But abuse?
When Jennifer Garner Asks Her Children to Present Her With Evidence of Social Media's Benefits to Adolescents She's Effectively Winning the Argument.
Because of course there is no evidence that it's beneficial.
But here's the thing. We all know it, deep down. Social media is more poison than nutrition. And if Jennifer Garner wants to protect her children from it my only question is:
Why Stop There?
Isn't it Time We All Ended Our Addictive Relationship with these Platforms?
The Grim Truth (that no one wants to admit) is that we are drained of far more than we gain.
We are all the engine that keeps social media's lights on. Without our data, there would be no money for any of it.
If only that were all it took from us.
That is why I fiercely hope that within my lifetime we will see the end of social media as a ubiquitous fixture of our cultural landscape.
We Need Nothing Short of a Massive Global Decoupling from All Social Media
And We Should Start Working on it Today. Because it May Take Years.
I'm convinced that If humankind is to have any hope of surviving on this planet to the end of this century, we must all embark on a global decoupling from Social Media in order to take back ownership of our relationships and all the connections that support a peaceful and productive and humane society.
Over the next few weeks, I'll be posting a series on social media's corrosive antisocial impact on our lives. Every Thursday starting June 1, 2023, I'll post a new short piece highlighting what I consider to be one example among many.
Viewed individually one might be tempted to see these as little more than minor irritants. But I would argue that taken as a whole they add up to a kind of death by a thousand cuts. So slowly, over time we are being torn apart and destroyed by these forces. Slowly. Incrementally. At times almost invisibly.
And so I'm calling this series:
A Thousand Cuts Death by Social Media
Look for a new post every Thursday. And if you don't want to miss a single one, consider subscribing to Extra Criticum. When you give us your email address, we'll send you a weekly update with links to the latest articles, but only when there's new stuff you haven't seen. And never more than once a week. Look to the upper right hand corner of this blog to fill out the form.
