Are Social Media Opponents Twisting the Data?
Travis Burchart, J.D.
I make the college "choice" a college "must" by connecting with students through marketing, social media, and storytelling.
A CNN op-ed recently argued that Utah’s social media restrictions—collectively known as the Social Media Regulation Act—are “about time.”[1] According to the author,[2] these restrictions are needed because social media is “potentially incredibly dangerous,” which is true for some children but no less “potentially incredibly dangerous” than teen driving, tackle football, or understaffed classrooms.
It's this “potentially incredibly dangerous”[3] mentality that has us sliding down the censorship slope, and it’s surprising to hear the author—a communications professor—mimic the historic rhetoric of book banners:
In 1982 … a case of attempted school censorship (Island Trees School District) reached the US Supreme Court. Here, the school board argued that "it is our moral duty to protect the children in our schools from this moral danger as surely as from physical and medical dangers." [emphasis added] The danger they referred to were books that were "anti-American, anti-Christian, anti-Semitic and just plain filthy."[4]—Self, J. (2022, September 22). The 'dangerous' books too powerful to read. BBC Culture.
But not just the historic language, the modern language too:
Complaints from [Llano County] community groups targeted multiple books they labeled as “pornographic filth” because they promoted “acceptance of LGBTQ views,” …. These books were removed from the [public] libraries … as well as other books listed as “pornographic” that were about ” ‘critical race theory’ and related racial themes.”—Elassar, A., Romine, T., & Rose, A. (2023, April 1).—Judge orders books removed from Texas public libraries due to LGBTQ and racial content must be returned within 24 Hours. CNN.
But I digress because this isn’t about censorship; it’s about data. According to the op-ed, citing Common Sense Media:[5]
The other huge challenge the Utah law helps parents overcome is the amount of time kids are spending on social media. A 2022 survey by Common Sense Media found that the average 8- to 12-year-old is on social media for 5 hours and 33 minutes per day, while the average 13- to 18 year-old [sic] spends 8 hours and 39 minutes every day. [emphasis added]. That’s more time than a full time-job.
Let’s unpack this data. It asserts or implies that:?
But are these numbers actually possible?
The Dangers of Data
The numbers—to me—seem unequivocally impossible. The problem with data is that people often treat it in one of two ways:
Considering the cited data, it seems—at first blush—shockingly obvious that the average 13- to 18-year-old CANNOT spend nearly 9 hours on social media every day. This is shockingly obvious to me because I have an average 15-year-old living under my roof.
Questioning the Data
Here’s an average school day for my average 15-year-old daughter:
Looking at her daily (weekday) schedule, the question is: When can she be on social media? Obviously, she’s limited to her waking hours, which means she has about 15 hours to get her 9 hours of social media in. Of these 15 hours, about 8 have to be excluded because cell phones aren’t allowed during most classes … this leaves her 7 hours of social media time (2 hours short of the 9-hour average). But for her to even get 7 hours/day of social media time, she’d have to be on her phone continuously during every free hour:
Thus, Impossible,[7] it would seem, for my average 13- to 18-year-old daughter to be “on social media” for “8 hours and 39 minutes every day.”[8]
Investigating the Data
Of course, the weight of my assertion is somewhat lacking because my data is of a single 15-year-old living in her own unique world. In terms of breadth, my one ethnographic observation is a mere David to the Goliath of data that goes into most professional research. So instead of looking at a singular example to question a broad assertion, maybe it’d be better to investigate the source data. A reminder of the data that’s in question, as published by CNN:
A 2022 survey by Common Sense Media found that the average 8- to 12-year-old is on social media for 5 hours and 33 minutes per day, while the average 13- to 18 year-old [sic] spends 8 hours and 39 minutes every day.
First of all, the author calls this a “2022 survey,” but that appears to be incorrect. While the cited source—The Common Sense Census: Media Use by Tweens and Teens—is dated March 9, 2022, this merely reflects the publication date, not the survey date. The survey itself covers a different time period:
Over the past two years, the coronavirus pandemic forced many young people to spend much more time at home, away from friends and activities, than they did in pre-pandemic times. One question many adults have had is: How has this affected the amount of time they spend with screens? This report presents the results of a nationally representative, probability-based tracking survey of U.S. tweens and teens, designed to answer that question.
…
We were most interested to see whether there were any lasting differences in young people’s use of screen media as society began to open up again in the fall of 2021. Therefore, this report compares the frequency, enjoyment, and time spent engaging in various types of media activities among 8-to 18-year-olds in 2019, just prior to the virus arriving in the United States, and fall 2021, as most schools around the country opened back up for in-person learning. [emphasis added].
So, as far as I can tell, the assertion that “the average 13- to 18-year-old spends 8 hours and 39 minutes [on social media] every day” is limited to “2019, just prior to the virus arriving in the United States, and fall 2021, as most schools around the country opened back up for in-person learning.” So not a “2022 survey” but a 2022 publication—focused on 2019-2021—that was
… designed to help answer … whether screen media use has changed since the onset of the coronavirus pandemic. Many have speculated that use of screen media increased during the first year of the pandemic, as most young people were restricted from normal activities and forced to spend more time at home.
The author also asserts that the Common Sense Media “averages” apply to “social media.” But that doesn’t seem to be the case either. According to the study:
On average, 8- to 12-year-olds use about five and a half hours of screen media [emphasis added] per day (5:33), while 13- to 18-year-olds use about eight and a half hours (8:39).
Note the term used by Common Sense Media is not “social media” but “screen media.”[9] In terms of “screen media,” the study states that:
The types of media activities included in the surveys are:
? Watching television, whether through broadcast, cable, or a subscription service
? Watching online videos, such as on YouTube
? Using social media
? Playing video or computer games
? Playing mobile video games, such as on a smartphone or tablet
? Reading, including ebooks, reading online, and reading print
? Using digital devices to create content, such as art, music, or creative writing
? Listening to podcasts
? Using virtual reality
Thus, the average times referenced in the op-ed apply—not solely to social media—but to “total screen media,” including television, gaming, social media, and “other.” Common Sense Media illustrates this clearly in the table below:?
Lastly, if one was to read the full study from Common Sense Media, one finds that the “average time among users” doesn’t actually reflect full/uninterrupted attention to “screen media.” Consequently, to “spend” (the word used by the author) 8 hours and 39 minutes on “social media,” doesn’t necessarily equate with a “full time-job,” as asserted. According to Common Sense Media:
These findings on total amount of screen media used do not mean that young people devote five and half or eight and a half hours each day exclusively to screen media, [emphasis added] for two reasons:
? They often spend some proportion of time using multiple screens at once (for example, scrolling social media while watching television), meaning two hours of screen content could fit into a single hour of the day.
? They often watch or use screen media while they are doing other things, like riding in a car or bus, or eating breakfast.
领英推荐
Framing the Data
And it’s not just CNN presenting this data in a questionable way; the New York Times does so too. In an article from March 2022, the data was correctly stated as:
The survey, published by the nonprofit research organization Common Sense Media, found that overall screen use among teens and tweens increased by 17 percent from 2019 to 2021 — growing more rapidly than in the four years prior. On average, daily screen use went up among tweens (ages 8 to 12) to five hours and 33 minutes from four hours and 44 minutes, and to eight hours and 39 minutes from seven hours and 22 minutes for teens (ages 13 to 18).
The good? This article contains the correct dates (“2019 to 2021”) and the correct media (“screen) use.
The bad? The article’s title has nothing to do with "screen use” nor is it limited to 2019-2021. Rather, it’s framed solely in terms of “social media” and with a sense of urgency:
“Kids as Young as 8 Are Using Social Media More Than Ever, Study Finds”
This framing sets the tone for the rest of the article. Consequently, it’s much easier to read the article and mistake the encompassing “screen time” for the more specific “social media.”[10] Likewise, “more than ever” implies something much greater than the two pandemic years reported on, allowing for a broader application in the minds of readers. Based on the subject matter, it would make more sense (and be truer to the topic) to title this New York Times article:
“Kids Increased Their Screen Use from 2019-2021, Pandemic Study Finds”
Similarly, there’s a lack of clarity—or a strategic use of emotionalism—in portraying the social media data. As asserted in the title, social media use for “kids as young as 8” is “more than ever.” This, according to the article, is cause for “concern”:
The increases reported by the survey are most likely a reflection of the [pandemic] difficulties …. Of particular concern to some who track screen time is an upswing [emphasis added] in social media use among children ages 8 to 12, on platforms such as Instagram, Snapchat and Facebook.
But in regard to tweens (“children ages 8 to 12” as referenced above), what does this “upswing”[11] actually entail? The New York Times article includes the same “screen use” data published by CNN (i.e., 5 hours and 33 minutes/8 hours and 39 per day), but to truly understand this “upswing”—as used in relation to social media—one should probably know the total increase in use. This was fully reported by Common Sense Media: ?
Since 2019, the biggest increases were in time spent watching online videos (up 23 minutes a day among teens), using social media (up 17 minutes a day among teens and eight minutes a day among tweens), [emphasis added] and browsing websites (up 14 minutes a day among teens and 10 minutes a day among tweens) (Tables A and B, pages?9–10).[12]
So for tweens using social media, the “upswing”—from 2019-2021—was an average increase of just “eight minutes a day” … from 10 minutes/day to 18 minutes/day. ?To better understand the impact of this data on the framing of the story, consider the original title versus a revised title that’s specific, objective, and clear:
The Hypocrisy of Protectionism
Despite everything I’ve said, many children are on social media too much. But the narrative of “too much” is a story that’s not told well. In fact, it’s a story that’s often slanted by personal biases, adult viewpoints, and journalistic sensationalism. And yes, social media has negative impacts—and positive ones too—but what gets lost in the debate is the wide-ranging, non-social media negatives that are willingly and historically accepted for our children, such as:
To truly keep kids safe—if we truly do care—we should be honest about the world at large and all the dangers that exist (and that we as adults allow). Of course, if we want to eliminate all these dangers, we can easily expedite the process simply by banning all “filth” and anything and everything that’s “potentially incredibly dangerous.”
----
[1] The op-ed makes the argument that “sharp” restriction is needed because social media is akin to restricting children from “bars or strip clubs”:
Just as parents and caregivers supervise our children offline and don’t allow them to go to bars or strip clubs, we have to ensure they don’t end up in unsafe spaces on social media.
It’s a thin analogy because bars and strip clubs are generally built for one thing and one thing only … alcohol and sex, respectively. But social media isn’t a space that’s strictly limited to adult-type “dangers.” It’s much more expansive than that. There are other aspects too: expression, creativity, learning, connection, etc.?The truer analogy would be libraries … spaces that are an amalgamation of children’s books and adult works. Or TV … a space filled with cartoons (harmless to children) and violence (potentially harmful to children). Or school … a center for creativity and learning but a breeding ground for bullying and peer pressure.
[2] I’ve chosen not to reference the author by name. Though the article is accessible by link, it’s not my intent to shame, call-out, cancel, or disparage the author. Though I disagree with her position, my sole intent is to point out: 1) the misrepresentation of data, 2) the intentional and emotional framing of news, 3) the hypocrisy of our overseers, and 4) the drinking of the censorship Kool-Aid.
[3] Yes, social media can be dangerous, but this is merely “potential” and isn’t the case for everyone. For many, social media is a way to learn, express, and create. If potential but limited dangers dictated child protections, we would’ve ended tackle football decades ago, raised the driving age to 21, and banned all sugary drinks.
[4] The “dangers” of “just plain filthy” aren’t that much different than, as the author puts it, the “the biggest dangers kids face online: toxic content.” Both “filthy” and “toxic” are broad, subjective, and difficult to define (which is why both words are used to restrict, impose, and subjugate expression/speech).?
[5] In no way do I want do disparage Common Sense Media. They do a good job of balanced and transparent reporting. When it comes to social media use amongst children, they highlight both the negative and the positive. In a recent study, Common Sense Media reported:
Teens who are already at risk or dealing with mental health challenges are more likely to have negative experiences with social media. But those same teens are also more likely to value the benefits of social media, like finding resources, community, or support.
[C]rucial steps [in the tech industry] could minimize harmful impacts on teens' mental health as well as maximize social media's benefits—especially for those teens who are already dealing with depression or other social vulnerabilities. Putting kids at the center of how platforms are designed may allow them to continue to use social media for all of its benefits and important social development needs.—Teens and mental health: How girls really feel about social media. Common Sense Media. (2023, March 30).
[6] If, as cited by the author, 9 hours is the average for about 26 million children, this means that millions and millions of children trend above average in their daily social media use … i.e., more than 9 hours/day (possibly 10 … 11 … 12 hours/day).?
[7] Of course, there are two possible counter observations:
[8] After asserting that the average 13- to 18-year-old spends nearly 9 hours per day on social media, the author’s subsequent paragraph immediately underscores the dangers of sleep deprivation:
The American Academy of Pediatrics warns that lack of sleep is associated with serious harms in children — everything from injuries to depression, obesity and diabetes. So parents in the US need to have a way to make sure their kids aren’t up on TikTok all night.
Citing the American Academy of Pediatrics in juxtaposition to the data ties the Academy’s “warning” closely to the data; it creates the illusion that the data justifies the warning or that the warning vilifies the data. Either way, there appears to be no proof that kids are actually “up on TikTok all night” other than: a) the assertion itself, and b) the preceding paragraph’s questionable claim that social media is “more time than a full time-job.”
[9] From the Common Sense Media study:
On average, 8- to 12-year-olds use about five and a half hours of screen media per day (5:33), while 13- to 18-year-olds use about eight and a half hours (8:39) (Figure 1). These figures represent the total amount of screen content young people consume or engage with, adding together the amount of time they spend watching television and online videos, playing video games, using social media, and the like. [emphasis added]
[10] The article goes on to say that “[social media] platforms require users to be at least 13 because of a law that prohibits companies from collecting data from children.” For a brief moment, the issue is framed as a point-of-entry/legal problem, but the article doesn’t follow this thread. Instead, it focuses almost entirely on screen time and the related data from Common Sense Media.
[11] The word “upswing” is directly connected to tweens … i.e., “children ages 8 to 12.” The title doesn’t make the same direct connection to the phrase “more than ever.” However, the connection is implied by “kids as young as 8,” which highlights the lowest end of the age spectrum (i.e., tweens).
[12] For teens, let’s assume (or imply)—as the CNN op-ed does—that these numbers are applicable today. According to the data, my “average” 15-year-old daughter is “on social media” for 1 hour and 27 minutes per day. Assuming she has about 7 hours of free time during a normal weekday, that means she’s using social media, every day, for about 12 minutes/hour. Not the astronomical time-suck often portrayed in the media. However, according to the data, she’s watching “television/videos” for 3 hours and 16 minutes per day. Despite the overwhelming time spent watching “television/videos” (i.e., the bigger time-suck), there’s very little parental ire (or government intervention) directed at broadcast companies, movie executives, Hollywood stars, or televised sports.
[13] In support of Utah’s social media law, the CNN op-ed points to social media’s “potentially incredibly dangerous” environment and “toxic content.” This, apparently, justifies Utah’s mandate that social media companies obtain parental consent (putting the onus on companies to police our children). If you support this, you must also support parental content for other “potentially incredibly dangerous” things like:
[An] estimated 94 million Americans perceived politics as a significant source of stress, 44 million had lost sleep because of politics, nearly 30 million reported politics had harmed their physical health, and 11 million had suicidal thoughts because of politics. Those effects are similar to or even higher than comparable health impacts associated with alcohol …. [emphasis added]
Of course, one might argue that in all of these cases … sugary drinks, television, politics … parents are perfectly capable of policing their own children. But it’s the same for social media, with phones and/or apps offering parents nearly total control over their child’s screen use and screen time.
[14] A rebuttal might sound something like this: “Resources are limited so we can’t focus on everything.” But then that raises the following questions: Are we focusing on the right thing? Are we championing a Band-Aid but ignoring the larger disease? Many adults point to mental health when speaking about social media use amongst children, but might mental health be better served by properly staffing our consistently understaffed schools?
The American School Counselor Association, for example, recommends a counselor-to-student ratio of 1:250. The association reports the national average was 1:415 in the 2020-21 school year.
….
In a database maintained by the National Center for School Mental Health, roughly 15,000 schools self-report that they have comprehensive school mental health systems. That’s about 15% of K-12 public schools in the United States.
…
School staff need proper training and oversight …. For instance, if teachers are administering universal mental health screeners to students, “are they being trained or is it seen as just another task to add to their workload?” [S]tudents and staff should all be trained in mental health awareness and know what referrals they can make if someone exhibits signs of needing help.—Sheasley, C. (2022, June 29). Mental health: Is that a job for schools? The Hechinger Report.