Mainstream Media is Already Lying About Age Verification

It took one day for the word to get out about a forthcoming age verification bill and the lies are already being published.

Yesterday, I published an article covering the word getting out about how a bill is expected to be tabled on Wednesday. In short, the government is planning on rolling the failed age verification laws and the terrible online harms legislation into one giant mess. The news is alarming for anyone who believes in freedom of expression, privacy, and a whole lot more.

I had honestly planned on writing about a different topic today since I figured that it would probably take a few days before the biased mainstream media lined up their false talking points to sell the horror show of a bill as a good thing, but as it turns out, it took a mere single day for the lies to start rolling in. This came courtesy of right wing rag, the National Post which is arguing that Prime Minister, Mark Carney, should be applauded for cracking down on human rights like this. The article starts off with this whopper of a lie:

This week, Prime Minister Mark Carney will announce a ban on social media for kids under 16. There will be exemptions, and we haven’t seen the details yet, but Canadians should applaud this move. I believe in personal freedom but also in science, and in protecting kids from harm. And every day, we see more evidence of the damage social media does to children.

Social media is addictive. It damages mental health. It exposes kids to predators. It has become a public health and safety issue. If tech companies won’t keep children off their platforms voluntarily, then Ottawa should make them do so.

This is a classic lie used to sell the legislation. For one, the author cites no research to bolster the argument, just pushing obviously made up talking points about “harms” to children. The reality is that the research found no such evidence. There has been study after study after study after study after study after study after study on this very topic. Conclusively, social media either had a net neutral impact or a net positive impact on children overall. In fact, one study even found that teens impacted by social media bans became less informed. In other words, when age verification is introduced, younger people are actually harmed by the age gates. Indeed, the research is rolling in and the evidence is piling up, but not in the way the age verification supporters claim it is.

Of course, the lies don’t end there. The author then pulled this whopper of a lie out of thin air:

There is also evidence that excessive screen time harms the adult brain, causing early neurodegeneration. The good news is that quitting it can reverse the damage. A two-week break from social media on your smartphone was recently found to reduce anxiety, improve mood and attention, and lift 10 years’ worth of brain fog.

None of this is true either. Research into this found no such thing. In fact, the research shows that screen time had negligible impact on teenagers. Claims that screen time causes “brain fog” and “damage” are completely fabricated. Again, the author never cited any research to back up the claims (what a surprise).

The author then went on to undermine their own claims with this:

As someone who fears few things more than cognitive decline, I decided to try it. I offloaded my social apps: they remained in the background, but not on my screen where they would tempt me to doomscroll. I consulted news sites only on my desktop and limited my social media use to posting my columns and liking posts that people sent me directly. I used my phone only for communication and utilities — texts, emails, maps, banking, shopping orders, and the like.

One, my phone use has gone down by two hours a day. That’s right: I was spending two hours staring at a little lighted box, stuffing my brain with random news articles and social feeds. At first, it felt weird — I had actual spare time. Not only was I able to get regular tasks done, but I read ten books, took early morning walks, edited a friend’s short story for fun, and sometimes did… nothing. It’s been like a mini-vacation.

Second, my mental health greatly improved. I feel measurably happier and less stressed. I find myself noticing my surroundings more, including how people constantly stare at their phones: at bus stops, on the subway, walking down the street. I think of how their brains are never resting, stimulated by light and information, addicted to the dopamine rush of a “like.” I shudder, because that was my brain too.

The reason this is actually defeating the argument for age verification is because it shows that if you somehow think you have a problem, you can voluntarily stop using these platforms. You do not need government intervention. If anything, this is just an argument for an education campaign or increasing awareness for social services more than anything else.

Unfortunately, the author betrays their intentions. They have little interest in doing anything good here, but rather, their intentions is to dictate how other people can run their lives:

Were there downsides? Am I less aware, less informed? True, I don’t see my friends’ photos and stories on Facebook. I now call, text, and see them in person instead. I don’t view every Instagram trend and Trump tweet in real time. But even as a writer, I don’t need to be constantly connected. Nor do I miss clickbait and disinformation. I consult news sites on my desktop and on television. I do my work. And then I turn them off. My ability to focus has improved, as has my productivity, which has left me with even more “free” time. It’s a virtuous circle. And I am never going back.

If this is the impact of social media on an adult brain, just think about its effect on a child’s brain. Spending hours a day on TikTok and Instagram instead of reading, interacting face-to-face with peers, and exercising. Social media is addictive, and its delivery mechanism — the smartphone — enables that addiction. And we parents put it into our children’s tiny hands.

If you don’t like social media, you can stop using it. There is nothing wrong with that. What the author is proposing here is, “hey, I this is the impact it has on me, therefore, it is the impact of everyone and I demand that everyone abides by my lifestyle”. As far as I’m concerned, the author can fuck all the way off with that attitude. The author doesn’t like social media, therefore, no one should have access to it.

This is the real side of age verification supporters. They want to utilize the power of government to dictate how you can run your lives. If that means forcing companies to use obviously faulty technology that results in privacy scandals and age gates that can easily be circumvented. It’s dangerous technology that they are forcing onto the broader population that puts everyone at risk. Framing this as just being about children is extremely disingenuous.

Still, it’s of little surprise that age verification supporters are lying about such laws. I fully expect the biased mainstream media to step up their propaganda campaigns moving forward, pushing whatever lies they can scrounge up. This is only the beginning of the bullshit.

Drew Wilson on Mastodon, Bluesky and Facebook.