Hidden costs
“Externalities” refer to the costs or benefits of producing a good or service that are not reflected in the market price. Negative externalities abound, in which profits are private and costs are shared by everyone. In the case of ultra-processed foods, the costs of treating patients (obesity, diabetes). In the fashion industry, the piles of clothes in a South American desert or in an African country. In the case of energy, global warming. And there are many other examples.
However, a reality that is clear to all, the industry channels resources into generating doubt. It claims that scientific studies are incomplete and more research is needed. That cause and effect have not been demonstrated. That there are multiple factors. Reactions are weak and delayed. Individually and institutionally, we welcome doubt, which soothes our anxiety, in a day-to-day life that already has its share of worries.
Chemical compounds are slowly being banned and taxes are making it more profitable to find an alternative or ensure recycling. Successful examples include the Montreal Protocol, which eliminated the production of ozone-depleting chemicals, and in Norway, the special tax on producers and distributors if they do not ensure the collection of 95% of plastic bottles.
In the new virtual world, externalities are not just physical. In addition to pollution and the energy costs associated with the production of gadgets, there are also intellectual and social externalities. There are increasing studies showing that we are more anxious and unhappy since our social lives have been shaped by social networks. The quality of our democracy has deteriorated, with political discourse controlled by algorithms that decide what we read and manipulate our most basic instincts.
In response to allegations made by former Big Tech employees, studies by doctors and scientists suggest the first answers. Several European countries are considering banning the use of mobile phones in schools (some even in secondary schools). In the US state of Utah, legislation was enacted in 2024 to set time limits on use, ban auto-play, scrolling and automatic notifications, and make it mandatory to display content in chronological order when the user is a minor. In 2023, 41 US states sued Meta for producing addictive apps specifically aimed at young people (following the release of internal documents by former Facebook employee Frances Haugen). A victory is not expected, given that the US Supreme Court has ruled that the companies that own these platforms are not responsible for the content. In Europe, the European Commission has been making a succession of requests for information under the Digital Services Regulation, although, to date, this has not yet been reflected in the way algorithms are designed.
It is important to speed up the response and recognize that it is not only children and young people who would benefit from the elimination of auto-play and scrolling or from content being presented in chronological order. After all, turning 18 does not miraculously make us immune to the negative effects of social media. A “curfew”, that is, a nighttime period when children and young people cannot be online (as provided for in Utah legislation) would allow for more peaceful sleep and certainly a healthier family and school environment. If it is already clear that a less digital school – without smartphones (it is worth remembering that touch-screen phones are always available to make contact) and with very limited use of televisions and computers – leads to better results in learning and behavior, why are we putting off taking action? And if the ideal is to legislate, it is also possible to act in our community and in our children’s schools. Let us mobilize as citizens, parents and educators so that, while Big Tech accumulates profits, we do not fall victim to this externality that corrodes our brains and the social fabric.
