Ross’s ideas were interesting, he had a unique way of thinking, although his points were executed thoroughly. Here are some of his ideas. We may start by attempting to keep more of childhood and adolescence out of the reach of social media, which is largely devoid of the policy difficulties that plague most attempts to govern the internet. Anyone who has followed social trends since the advent of the social media era, or who knows anyone with adolescent children, would be unsurprised by the revelations: Internal records claimed that the app led to teen girls' melancholy and anxiety, as well as suicide thoughts and body image difficulties. These aren't the first studies that correlate social media use to youth unhappiness, and anytime such material enters the public discourse, there are two primary reactions. I agree with his points, social media can be bad in many ways for people especially younger ones. People who are predisposed to believe the evidence that social media is bad for you are venting their frustrations on tech companies, which are accused of being only concerned with their numbers rather than being socially responsible and recognizing that they are a bunch of nerds making money while destroying the world. No, if you genuinely want to take preventative measures to limit the damage that social media is causing, you'll need to make them simpler and blunter: You must establish a society in which social media is considered to be for adults, and the largest networks are expected to monitor their membership and keep children under the age of 16 or 18 of the site. Because he demonstrated that they can be, his view would be effective. In such a world, what would be lost? Social media, it is said, provides crucial forms of connection and belonging for children who are alienated and unhappy in their physical surroundings. The scope of social media, rather than its online-ness, is a major issue from this perspective. !