LISA JARVIS
the central government’s commitment towards the Northeast and the federal structure of our democracy. Hypothetically, if there had been no GST during covid, there would have been no compensation to states and no back-to-back loans for compensation either; so the states would have faced a collapse in revenue. But the presence of GST and the compensation arrangement has been a boon to the resource-constrained north eastern states. GST has also had a key role in balancing the vertical fiscal imbalance between north-eastern states and the Centre and improving the same at an aggregate level for the country.
The additional revenue that the country’s north-eastern states have realized under the GST regime has enabled them to invest heavily in infrastructure development, as is visible in the manifold rise in allocations for capital expenditure in their budgets. GST has also enabled them to participate more actively in the national market and benefit from increased trade and investment opportunities.
The generous compensation package and fortuitous rise in tax revenues should be used by these states to unlock their economic potential, even as they tap new sources of revenue, rather than slip into tax complacency. The true potential of this natural economic zone, or ‘Ashtalakshmi ’asthe Northeast is often termed, can only be realized if we mobilize much-needed resources for the development of the region and the GST regime sustains its strong revenue performance.
Momentum has been building to force social media companies to make their products safer for kids. But some solutions, while well intended, don’t address the underlying problem: the way these apps prey on developing brains.
A report from the American Psychological Association (APA) highlights solutions that follow the science. That’s an important message because if we want to see meaningful improvements, we need to focus on what’s actually causing the harm. That’s not necessarily the age of children on social media—the focus of many policy efforts— but the products’ features, and how those features affect young minds.
As the APA report points out, the teen brain is still learning skills like impulse control, planning and prioritization. That makes them especially vulnerable to infinite scrolls or the pull of followers, ‘likes’ and ‘shares.’ And some teens are particularly susceptible to harmful content or bad actors.
The brief list of recommendations from the APA follows its social media advisory from last year, which demanded better science about how platforms like TikTok and Instagram affect kids’ brains. But some of the responses from policymakers and thought leaders were not always aligned with the science, says Mitch Prinstein, the APA’s chief science officer. Too much of the policy focus narrowed to a simple idea: age limits.
But drawing a bright line on age is not a cure-all. Turning 13 (or for that matter, 16) does not make someone magically capable of handling the responsibilities of social media. Conversely, some children might have the maturity to navigate those platforms before they are 13.
Moreover, the age limits we already have are not working. Tweens and teens are notoriously more tech-savvy than their parents. They excel at finding workarounds to age restrictions on apps and time limits on devices.
“There aren’t simple solutions to a complex problem,” says Dave Anderson, a clinical psychologist at the Child Mind Institute. Social media isn’t going anywhere, and teens are going to use it. “We need to tailor our solutions to the risks [identified by] the science, rather than the risks amplified by the zeitgeist,” he says.
What could that look like? Prinstein offered a template for safer social media accounts that sounded pretty good to this parent of a tween. “I would love to enter my child’s age and have all of the guardrails automatically put into place,” he says. The default would be to protect a child’s data, turn off the endless scroll, disable likes, and bar certain types of sensitive content, such as things like cyberhate, explicit content or posts that encourage eating disorders. Those settings could be tweaked for more mature children. “It doesn’t seem like a lot to ask,” he adds.
Age limits alone are too blunt a solution. Yes, policymakers have always needed to make somewhat arbitrary choices about when kids are ready for certain responsibilities, whether that’s driving a car or accessing Snapchat. But some kids can benefit from access to social media. And yet solutions to its inherent faults have focused on banning access altogether or putting the onus on parents to muddle through.
As I’ve written before, parents play an essential role in their children’s transition into a healthy digital life. But even the most diligent parents cannot navigate this environment alone. We need social media companies to step up—not in the form of token changes, but with substantive modifications to their platforms that address what the science shows is a problem.
Another thing that social media companies need to do: Share their data on how kids are using their platforms. Progress towards real transparency feels frustratingly slow. Earlier this year, the Center for Open Science in the US announced a partnership with Meta to facilitate certain researchers to access data that could help them better understand the relationship between social media and well-being. That’s a start, if a small one.
Companies could accelerate this research into the ways social media is used by and affecting kids. They could offer up data from experiments they have already run on how to engage teens with their products. Surely, they know a lot about which features make their products even more problematic for teens. They should disclose them and fix them.
If we focus on the easiest fixes rather than the more nuanced solutions indicated by the science, nothing will change. Social media companies only seem interested in doing just enough to keep their CEO out of the Congressional hot seat. Lawmakers seem interested only in symbolic political victories. Parents need to keep advocating for real reform.