The Lack of Imagination in Our Tech Debates

The internet is, to steal a phrase from a braver time, bad for children and other living things. People may quibble over the degree, but I don’t think that anyone seriously disputes that use of the internet causes mental health issues for kids (and adults). Issues that are becoming worse as chatbots are unleashed that sycophantically encourage you to kill yourself to keep you engaged with the product. And I don’t think that anyone would argue that bans and age-verification systems do not have problems associated with them. But is a marker, I think, of how deeply credulous and, well, unserious our tech media and political culture has become around the internet, that no one thinks we can do anything other than tinker around the edges.

The source of my crankiness this morning is this Verge opinion piece suggesting we tax tech firms to build a public internet for kids. Now, I do not want to be a complete jerk about this. I do appreciate that the article at least points toward acknowledging that the internet is, to be cute, unhealthy for children and other living things. But the article is an example of how limited the conversation, at least at the elite (and yes, it’s the Verge. None of those folks have a ton of real power or money. But the mainstream press is elite in the sense that it helps direct the conversations, and the Verge definitely qualifies, I think, in the tech world) level, is so unwilling or unable to imagine a future that does not look pretty much like this one.

Again, I do not want to spend time attacking this line by line. A public internet supported by tax dollars is not a bad idea. It is just an ineffective one, one that will not touch the real problems. An internet for kids, supposedly, would provide an alternative to the adult internet. But the piece doesn’t really ever address how you expect to get kids onto the public internet. Most wont go willingly — pre-teens and teens are not, as the article acknowledges, big fans of doing what their elders tell them to — without the same kinds of age gating they argue against. They also don’t seem to even consider the idea that the platforms that are the cause of the problem to begin with will prevent content from this new public internet surfacing in their platforms. This is less a plan and more a wish for things to get better. Which, fine. But wishes are generally not as effective as actions.

Action is where the lack of courage or imagination come through in this article. The author equates forcing platforms to modify their business practices with preventing adults from having the internet they want. He also concedes that getting kids off the internet and into the real world is better for them than a public kid friendly internet, but derisively dismisses the concerns as too hard. As if taxing rich people and firms was as easy as falling out of bed. Basically, the author is either too cowardly or lacks the imagination to envision real solutions — change the business models that drive the addictive behaviors and create safe physical spaces for kids to congregate in. Is either easy? No, of course not. But they promise to be a much better use of time and money than chasing some fantasy of a kids’ only internet.

I suspect that a lot of people pine for the internet as it was when they first encountered it. The internet really used to be a pace where different communities could thrive, where different political factions could organize against oppression, where people not corporations largely drove the experience. But that internet has not existed for some time. Money, the libertarian disdain for democratic control of the engines of the economy as modeled by organizations like the EFF, and shareholder capitalism have all conspired to slice the internet up into little fiefdoms whose only goal is to keep you scrolling, no matter the effect on your, your family, or your society. The good internet cannot ever come back as long as we do not attack the pillars of the bad. Algorithms, data brokering, hyper-specific advertising, engagement farming must all be dealt with. And none of this is a secret. The fact that our press and tech adjacent academia refuse to simply state the truth shows just how much work we still have left.