In a June 17 op-ed, US Surgeon General Vivek Murthy advocated for warning labels on social media that would alert users to the dangers of the product. Murthy believes warning labels can be effective deterrents of addictive habits, citing their impact on cigarette smoking.
Tobacco use in the US has certainly decreased since the 1964 Surgeon General’s report on smoking, and the 1966 introduction of warning labels. At that time, 40% of US adults smoked. Today it's 11%. But the Surgeon General’s report and warning labels were just the first salvos in the decades-long war on tobacco.
In 1967, anti-smoking ads began appearing on TV as part of the FCC Fairness Doctrine requiring broadcasters to run an anti-smoking ads for every cigarette ad. By 1971, cigarette ads were banned entirely from TV and radio. In 1980, the federal cigarette tax doubled, and subsequent state and federal tax hikes tripled the after-inflation price of cigarettes by 2015. The 1990s saw the Surgeon General's report on secondhand smoking, which led to indoor smoking bans. That same decade, drug companies developed over-the-counter nicotine alternatives.
It's our opinion that it took all five of those factors to reduce smoking:
- Increased awareness of health risks
- Increased awareness of health risks to bystanders
- Large price increases
- Limited access to product
- Increased availability of healthier alternatives
Americans are in agreement that it will take more than warning labels to reduce social media use – only 24% think it would have an impact. But the five necessary factors to bring down use are in place with social media, or could be soon.
Awareness of the risk to users and society at large is high — 97% say there is a youth mental health crisis in the US, and 95% think social media is a problem. Real-world events support these conclusions as deaths of despair — suicides, drug, and alcohol use — have tripled since 2000, at 190k annually, they are up to 40% of the 500k annual smoking deaths.
Congress has the power to drive up prices, limit access, and increase availablity of healthier alternatives. The first by banning ads on social media, which would cause Facebook et al. to switch to subscription models. The second by banning social media in schools, and capping the number of posts per person per day. The third by funding non-profit media platforms whose objective is not solely to gain eyeballs.
Working against all this is the sheer number of users. In 1965, we started a war on a habit practiced by 40% of American adults. Today we'd need to do so on one practiced by 75%. It is a battle that can be won, but are we willing to start a war when the enemy is us?