There are many Americans who are concerned about the overuse of, and possible addiction to, social media, but is the proper reaction to these concerns instituting more tyranny in America?
A BILL
To prohibit social media companies from using practices that exploit human psychology or brain physiology to substantially impede freedom of choice, to require social media companies to take measures to mitigate the risks of internet addiction and psychological exploitation, and for other purposes.
Proposed SMART Act
While many people are concerned about different things that social media companies have been doing lately, this proposed legislation gives me the opportunity to ask two very important questions.: Is this the proper role of government? And are Americans truly free?
Is this the proper role of government?
That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,
Declaration of Independence
The Declaration of Independence says that governments are instituted to secure our rights, not to protect us from ourselves. There are a lot of things we do that are not good for us. However, if we are a free people it means we are free to make mistakes. This type of legislation, to protect us from ourselves, is exactly the arbitrary legislation the Webster’s 1828 Dictionary calls tyranny.
A restraint of natural liberty not necessary or expedient for the public, is tyranny or oppression.
Liberty – Webster’s 1828 Dictionary
Is the role of government to protect us, even from ourselves? Did we establish them to hover over us like an overprotective parent making sure nothing will harm us? Is the role of government to make sure everyone gets a participation trophy? Did our Founding Fathers envision a nanny state where Americans are protected from anything the aristocrats in Washing think might give us a boo-boo? A people under such a government are not citizens so much as subjects. They are not sovereign, they are serfs. They are also not a free people, but wards of the state; not only are such a people protected from harm, they are protected from success as well. If we cannot be expected to make decisions for ourselves as to what we will do with our time, then we are not capable of governing ourselves either.
What have these social media companies done that Senator Hawley thinks is so offensive?
(b) FINDINGS.—Congress finds the following:
(1) The business model for many internet companies, especially social media companies, is to capture as much of their users’ attention as possible.
(2) To achieve this end, some of these internet companies design their platforms and services to exploit brain physiology and human psychology.
(3) By exploiting psychological and physiological vulnerabilities, these design choices interfere with the free choice of users.
Proposed SMART Act
You know what I find interesting about these finding? These are the exact same tactics that advertising and marketing companies have been using for decades, and this doesn’t seem to bother Mr. Hawley at all. How much money do companies spend to grab users’ attention during the Super Bowl? Commercials, print, and radio ads are all designed to capture the user’s attention. Our whole media system is designed around platforms and services that exploit brain physiology and psychology. That is why commercials are as long as they are and appear at the frequency they do. That is why companies pay more for full-page ads vs smaller ones or ads on certain pages. That is why your mailbox is full of junk mail and catalogs every day. That is why people make money writing copy to grab your attention, manipulate your emotions, and entice you to continue reading and eventually buy their product.
In short, Mr. Hawley is upset that social media companies are using the exact same tools that other media companies do. Apparently Mr. Hawley believes it is his job to protect the American people from themselves. Does he think we cannot decide for ourselves how much social media we and our children should be consuming? Maybe the effective goal of this legislation is to establish a boogieman they can protect us from? A boogieman they can use to get us to turn over more of our rights to an ever expanding Washington elite?
Are Americans Truly Free?
You may think asking a question about our freedom based on proposed legislation to prevent social media companies from “exploiting” the American people is a stretch of logic, but follow me on this for a minute.
The first question I asked was, “Is this a proper role of government?” If governments are institutions to protect our rights, does that include telling us how and where we can do business? Are you free if you can only interact with others based on what government aristocrats say is best for you? Are you free if a nanny government gets to tell you when and how long you can use social media? If you cannot be trusted to watch your own social media usage, why should you be trusted with other media? Will Congress next put restrictions on how long you can binge watch on Netflix before you have to restart the clock? Maybe they don’t think watching football or baseball all afternoon is good for you? Will they pass more legislation stating it’s addictive behavior and needs to be controlled? If they can say how long you can use media before you get a warning, will it be long before they limit how much you can consume at all? And is it really that far from setting limits on how long you watch to setting them on what you can watch in the first place?
With freedom comes responsibility. If we are free to do something, we are responsible for the consequences of that freedom. Social media can be used for good or for ill. If we let government determine when and how much we can use, then we’ve let them take a little more of our freedom. And if we think we know how much social media others should use, then we are nothing more than tyrants. Mr. Hawley claims he want to protect us from evil social media companies, but what he really wants is more control over the lives of the American people. The question we should be asking ourselves is, do we want to live free or controlled?
