Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Urban planning can counter social media’s impact on young people

Social media app icons
hapabapa/Getty Images

Dr. Jones is a grassroot urban planner, architectural designer, and public policy advocate. She was recently a public voice fellow through The OpEd Project.

Despite the breathtaking beauty of our world, many young people remain oblivious to it, ensnared by the all-consuming grip of social media. A recent Yale Medicine report revealed the rising negative impact social media has on teens, as this digital entrapment rewires their brains and leads to alarming mental and physical health struggles. Tragically, they are deprived of authentic life experiences, having grown up in a reality where speculation overshadows genuine interactions.

For the sake of our society’s future, we must urgently curb social media’s dominance and promote real-world exploration through urban planning that ensures accessible, enriching environments for all economic levels to safeguard the mental and physical health of the young.


Social media’s virtual world is a dangerous place. Just as discriminatory policies can shape city planning, social media has crafted densely populated online environments that become breeding grounds for social chaos and disarray.

These virtual communities frequently carry the burden of social distress, reinforcing stereotypical problems closely associated with poverty, misbehavior and propaganda. Our responsibility lies in leveraging the potential of social media while preserving the values of genuine human connection and a harmonious living environment.

Europe’s innovative approaches in tackling the impact of social media on well-being could offer valuable insights for the United States. By drawing from Europe’s playbook, the U.S. has an opportunity to safeguard society against self-harm stemming from online platforms and to proactively foster the creation of communities through city planning design and programs that promote mental health. This is especially crucial in light of the deteriorating mental health trends observed among Americans.

In her seminal work, “ The Death and Life of Great American Cities,” prolific and influential urban planner Jane Jacobs articulated that urban planning had neglected and oversimplified the intricate nature of human lives within diverse communities. Similarly, social media, initially designed to enhance information accessibility, has evolved into a dual-edged tool. It facilitates the spread of misinformation while also contributing to mental and physical well-being issues, exemplifying the complexity of its impact on society. The rapid flow of information facilitated by social media has led to a decline in individuals’ capacity to focus and concentrate, encouraging quick, surface-level responses to situations that can significantly impact their personal well-being and livelihoods.

As inherently social beings, we possess an intrinsic requirement for human interaction and a certain degree of problem-solving that drives our continual advancement. The convenience of easily accessible social information has led to a sense of complacency that not only impacts our emotional state but also profoundly reshapes the neural pathways within the cerebral cortex of our brains. In various cases, something as seemingly innocuous as regularly consuming content on platforms like TikTok and Instagram has been scientifically demonstrated to disrupt our capacity to actively engage both socially and intellectually.

Furthermore, the introduction of artificial intelligences has intensified individuals’ willingness to rely on pre-established sources, thereby potentially diminishing their inclination for independent thought. This development prompts contemplation on the relationship between historical elite party discouragement of free thinking and the current trend of individuals overlooking creative and critical thinking beyond what major tech platforms promote.

Similar to the way community design addresses certain aspects of citizens’ fundamental needs, social media also offers attributes that cater to these needs. However, both social media and city planning can sometimes introduce benefits that inadvertently lead to detrimental effects. For instance, they can inadvertently contribute to widespread gentrification through practices resembling colonization such as constructing highways that disrupt entire neighborhoods. This process undermines the sustainability of communities, subsequently positioning social media as a distraction for citizens, exacerbating the ongoing erosion of societal foundations.

Effective urban planning for communities necessitates a comprehensive investment in various dimensions, including mental, physical, economic and structural aspects of the living environment. While social media has its role, it shouldn’t replace or overshadow in-person communal interactions on both professional and personal fronts. It’s crucial to reassess the way social media is consumed so that it serves as a tool for enriching thought rather than shaping it entirely.

By prioritizing community design, there’s an opportunity to create environments where social media coexists with interactive and sustainable communities. This approach can facilitate holistic experiences that integrate online platforms with physical spaces. It’s incumbent upon us to prevent social media from oversimplifying society and fostering a detachment from the real world and the people within it.

Read More

Someone wrapping a gift.

As screens replace toys, childhood is being gamified. What this shift means for parents, play, development, and holiday gift-giving.

Getty Images, Oscar Wong

The Christmas When Toys Died: The Playtime Paradigm Shift Retailers Failed to See Coming

Something is changing this Christmas, and parents everywhere are feeling it. Bedrooms overflow with toys no one touches, while tablets steal the spotlight, pulling children as young as five into digital worlds that retailers are slow to recognize. The shift is quiet but unmistakable, and many parents are left wondering what toy purchases even make sense anymore.

Research shows that higher screen time correlates with significantly lower engagement in other play activities, mainly traditional, physical, unstructured play. It suggests screen-based play is displacing classic play with traditional toys. Families are experiencing in real time what experts increasingly describe as the rise of “gamified childhoods.”

Keep ReadingShow less
Affordability Crisis and AI: Kelso’s Universal Capitalism

Rising costs, AI disruption, and inequality revive interest in Louis Kelso’s “universal capitalism” as a market-based answer to the affordability crisis.

Getty Images, J Studios

Affordability Crisis and AI: Kelso’s Universal Capitalism

“Affordability” over the cost of living has been in the news a lot lately. It’s popping up in political campaigns, from the governor’s races in New Jersey and Virginia to the mayor’s races in New York City and Seattle. President Donald Trump calls the term a “hoax” and a “con job” by Democrats, and it’s true that the inflation rate hasn’t increased much since Trump began his second term in January.

But a number of reports show Americans are struggling with high costs for essentials like food, housing, and utilities, leaving many families feeling financially pinched. Total consumer spending over the Black Friday-Thanksgiving weekend buying binge actually increased this year, but a Salesforce study found that’s because prices were about 7% higher than last year’s blitz. Consumers actually bought 2% fewer items at checkout.

Keep ReadingShow less
Censorship Should Be Obsolete by Now. Why Isn’t It?

US Capital with tech background

Greggory DiSalvo/Getty Images

Censorship Should Be Obsolete by Now. Why Isn’t It?

Techies, activists, and academics were in Paris this month to confront the doom scenario of internet shutdowns, developing creative technology and policy solutions to break out of heavily censored environments. The event– SplinterCon– has previously been held globally, from Brussels to Taiwan. I am on the programme committee and delivered a keynote at the inaugural SplinterCon in Montreal on how internet standards must be better designed for censorship circumvention.

Censorship and digital authoritarianism were exposed in dozens of countries in the recently published Freedom on the Net report. For exampl,e Russia has pledged to provide “sovereign AI,” a strategy that will surely extend its network blocks on “a wide array of social media platforms and messaging applications, urging users to adopt government-approved alternatives.” The UK joined Vietnam, China, and a growing number of states requiring “age verification,” the use of government-issued identification cards, to access internet services, which the report calls “a crisis for online anonymity.”

Keep ReadingShow less
The concept of AI hovering among the public.

Panic-driven legislation—from airline safety to AI bans—often backfires, and evidence must guide policy.

Getty Images, J Studios

Beware of Panic Policies

"As far as human nature is concerned, with panic comes irrationality." This simple statement by Professor Steve Calandrillo and Nolan Anderson has profound implications for public policy. When panic is highest, and demand for reactive policy is greatest, that's exactly when we need our lawmakers to resist the temptation to move fast and ban things. Yet, many state legislators are ignoring this advice amid public outcries about the allegedly widespread and destructive uses of AI. Thankfully, Calandrillo and Anderson have identified a few examples of what I'll call "panic policies" that make clear that proposals forged by frenzy tend not to reflect good public policy.

Let's turn first to a proposal in November of 2001 from the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP). For obvious reasons, airline safety was subject to immense public scrutiny at this time. AAP responded with what may sound like a good idea: require all infants to have their own seat and, by extension, their own seat belt on planes. The existing policy permitted parents to simply put their kid--so long as they were under two--on their lap. Essentially, babies flew for free.

The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) permitted this based on a pretty simple analysis: the risks to young kids without seatbelts on planes were far less than the risks they would face if they were instead traveling by car. Put differently, if parents faced higher prices to travel by air, then they'd turn to the road as the best way to get from A to B. As we all know (perhaps with the exception of the AAP at the time), airline travel is tremendously safer than travel by car. Nevertheless, the AAP forged ahead with its proposal. In fact, it did so despite admitting that they were unsure of whether the higher risks of mortality of children under two in plane crashes were due to the lack of a seat belt or the fact that they're simply fragile.

Keep ReadingShow less