Mainstream Media Tries Blaming Social Media for Exposing Youth to Violence

As the mainstream media scrambles to justify age verification laws, one outlet is arguing that young people are exposed to violence.

The mainstream media is continuing to go into overdrive to push anti-technology propaganda in their quest to crack down on the internet. This after yet more damning evidence pointing out that age verification laws are a total failure.

So, what is the mainstream media turning to today to scapegoat social media? Apparently, exposing young people to violent content and violent themes. No, I’m not exaggerating. From CTV:

As Canada edges toward legislation meant to protect youths online, a new survey suggests most teens in the country have encountered real violence or gore on the internet.

Eighty-five per cent of the 1,007 teens who participated in an online survey in January commissioned by scholarly organization DIY: Digital Safety and the Canadian Centre for Child Protection, reported seeing either form of brutality online.

More than 70 per cent had seen videos of physical fights, 65 per cent had viewed police violence, and 52 per cent watched someone being injured or killed in a war. Ten per cent reported seeing child sexual abuse material.

Half of respondents said they had watched footage of late right-wing activist Charlie Kirk being assassinated on stage at Utah Valley University last September, while 33 per cent had viewed mass or school shooting videos.

Wow, that is so shocking. Disturbing themes found on social media. Nowhere else could you possibly see things like that. Just look at mainstream media stories to see all kinds of happiness and delight that would never feature violent or disturbing themes:

NYSP: Wrong-way driver involved in crash on Inner Loop that kills two people
Police investigate two possibly linked shootings in Markham and Aurora
Israeli troops kill two in south Lebanon after lull in fighting, authorities say
Israeli attacks kill dozens in Lebanon as US, Iran to hold talks on truce
US military says senior Islamic State group leader killed in Syria air strike
Two 19-year-olds face charges in violent machete assault
Alberta man charged with sex crimes involving minors while out on bail
Senior Canadian Forces officer in Ottawa charged with sexual assault
Sexual assault charges laid against B.C. massage therapist

Yup, that’s right, the mainstream media has a totally squeaky clean reputation when it comes to showing anything that would be considered “disturbing”. It’s all the fault of social media. After all, would broadcasters actually broadcast TV shows that feature violence and gore? That would never happen. All you have to do is watch totally non-violent TV shows like Hannibal or shows that would never feature violence, disturbing content, or suicides like The Beat or violence as a sport like Mixed Martial Arts or the WWF. Never in a million years would broadcasters feature shows like that.

What’s more, the internet is where dedicated websites devoted to sexual content. That sort of thing would never happen in traditional broadcasting. After all, can you imagine a whole TV station devoted to that sort of thing? Like, imagine if broadcasters put out TV stations like SexTV or Playboy TV. What’s more, they would never broadcast movies like the Red Violin or The Blue Lagoon. Can you imagine the uproar that would ensue if broadcasters broadcasted anything like that? Like, what if under age people watched that stuff? They would never do something like that. It’s only on social media where young people could potentially get exposed to that because you would never see stuff like that on TV.

Now, sarcasm aside, there was one aspect that was buried deep into the article. That is this:

Exposure to graphic material was most common on YouTube, followed closely by TikTok and then Instagram, the study found.

After seeing violence or gore, most of the surveyed teens told researchers they either do nothing or they block, remove or mute the account that posted the content. In the 11 per cent of instances when teens reported violence or gore to an app or platform, the reporting often did not result in the content being removed.

Dodge said that was a “really powerful” finding because it shows how much the videos stuck with some teens and how much they wish someone was doing something to remove them quickly.

So, the content is being blocked and tools are being used. This is actually quite good because it shows that younger people are not only educated enough to know about the tools, but also use it in appropriate circumstances. I know the media is trying to lay down a thick layer of scaremongering here to try and dilute the positive findings down, but that is something to note.

At any rate, if the mainstream media is trying to make this position, then there are two logical outcomes that can be explored. One is that age verification laws need to be placed on broadcast TV. You know, to protect the children. If those mechanisms fail to prevent younger audiences from viewing content they shouldn’t be exposed to, maybe make those broadcasters liable. The other is to say that basic text warning labels are sufficient across the board. If it’s good enough for a news anchor to say “the following may be disturbing to some viewers”, then a tick box to confirm an internet user is over the age of 18 is good enough. Pick your poison because we are already well into the territory of broadcasters saying “it’s only OK when we do it.”

I know the mainstream media is pushing an anti-tech agenda to find any kind of justification for things like age verification laws and online harms legislation. The reality is that this latest argument does nothing to bolster their arguments.

Drew Wilson on Mastodon, Bluesky and Facebook.