PARENTS AND TEACHERS have always had to fight to hold and direct teenagers’ attention—to get them to engage in conversation at family dinner, to encourage them to put down the video game controller and pick up a book, to make sure they do their homework instead of gossiping all night with friends. Teenagers themselves have long fought to avoid distractions and focus their attention where they needed or wanted it to be.

But something has changed in the last decade or so. It’s no longer a fair fight. That’s because social media companies have developed highly sophisticated methods of capturing and maintaining our attention. As their brains develop, teenagers are especially vulnerable to those techniques, which also pose significant risks to their mental health.

Some might say we’ve heard this story before. Wasn’t television supposed to rot children’s brains in the 20^th century? But the attentional pull of social media isn’t the same as the draw of television. It’s far stronger, more akin to addiction than simple distraction.

A teenager in 1998 might have blown off math homework to watch “Dawson’s Creek” at 9 p.m. on Tuesday night, but the networks could only hold their attention for so long. They were broadcasting to a general audience, and the 10 p.m. offering might not have captured their interest.

In 2025, social media companies know exactly how to hold a teenager’s interest. It’s as if every show in the Tuesday night lineup was written and produced just for them, along with the daytime schedule and the lineup on every other weeknight. At any moment of any day, social media companies can direct today’s teenager to content that’s just as captivating as Dawson’s Creek was in 1998.

Social media companies track how long a teenager spends looking at each post, which posts they like and comment on, when they’re most likely to come online, and more. From all this data, they’re able to target content to adolescents that is individually tailored to their interests and behavioral profile.

When young people encounter this endless stream of bespoke content, they get a series of dopamine hits that keep them on the app—and social media companies get to sell more ads.

Some researchers and commentators have started referring to these data and algorithm-fueled practices as “human fracking”—a high-tech way of extracting more attention from a limited supply, just as oil and gas companies have developed innovative ways to extract more fossil fuels from sources that were thought to be exhausted.

And just as fossil fuel fracking has wreaked havoc on the environment, the “fracking” of teenagers’ attention may wreak havoc on their minds. Last year, the US Surgeon General issued an alarming Advisory on Social Media and Youth Mental Health. It noted that frequent social media use is associated with changes in parts of the developing brain that are connected to impulse control, emotional regulation, and moderating social behavior. It also explained that social media has been linked to depression, anxiety, loneliness, sleep problems, and attentional issues in teenagers.

The advisory cited research indicating that minors who spend more than three hours a day on social media face twice the risk of serious mental health problems. Given that teenagers spend an average of almost five hours per day on social media, those negative consequences may be widespread in the adolescent population.

Fortunately, Massachusetts is not powerless in the face of these harms to our children. In January, we filed legislation that would prohibit social media companies from directing content at minors through algorithms that are capable of hijacking their attention. The bill would also prohibit social media companies from interfering with minors’ sleep by sending them notifications overnight.

By prohibiting addictive algorithmic feeds for minors, we can limit the addictive power of social media and help adolescents establish more balanced relationships with technology.

Teens would still be able to use social media if the bill became law. They’d see posts from friends, posts they searched for, and posts from accounts they chose to follow, but they wouldn’t see an infinite scroll of algorithmically targeted content from accounts to which they never even subscribed. The world of social media would become more finite, and it wouldn’t be so hard for teenagers to pull themselves away.

The prohibition on algorithmic feeds would also protect teens from being steered toward potentially harmful content. These feeds have pushed children experiencing body image issues toward videos promoting eating disorders, and directed depressed teenagers to videos demonstrating how to commit suicide—often with tragic consequences. Without addictive feeds, struggling teenagers wouldn’t be able to spiral so easily into further isolation and distress.

The Commonwealth wouldn’t be the first state to pass such a law. California and New York passed their own addictive feeds prohibitions last year, overcoming vociferous opposition from Big Tech companies that were unwilling to relinquish their devastating (and profitable) hold on teenagers’ attention.

In New York, opponents led by Meta and Google spent almost $1 million on a “whisper campaign” against the addictive feeds prohibition and another bill creating safeguards related to children’s personal data. We can expect similar opposition here. When it arrives, we should remember that our children are relying on us to have the courage and the wisdom to push back on Big Tech’s self-motivated spin.

Parents and teachers are ready for change. Even teenagers are tired of social media companies robbing them of their time and attention. Let’s come together to ban the destructive fracking of our children’s minds.

Cynthia Creem, a Democrat from Newton, is the majority leader in the Massachusetts Senate. Bill MacGregor is a Democratic state representative from West Roxbury.

The post Big Tech is exploiting teens with addictive social media feeds. We can stop it. appeared first on CommonWealth Beacon.

AS WE CELEBRATE the 33^rd anniversary of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), all of us have a stake in providing full accessibility. One in five people will experience a temporary or permanent disability. Almost everyone has a family member, friend, or colleague for whom accessibility is critical to full participation in the economy and society.

As the oldest public transit system in the United States, the MBTA is playing catch-up on access. Decades of underinvestment have multiplied the challenges the Commonwealth faces in making the T safe, reliable, efficient, and accessible. The Federal Transit Administration’s oversight of the MBTA – and the crises that precipitated FTA involvement – is a consequence of years of deferred maintenance, misplaced priorities, and management missteps.

Today, we all want a different story. We appreciate MBTA General Manager Phillip Eng’s confidence that change is underway. With new staff leadership, a new governing board, and the commitment of a new governor, the MBTA hopes to start a new chapter.

Accessibility should be central to that new chapter. Thirty-two of the MBTA commuter rail system’s 142 stations are fully inaccessible to riders with disabilities, including all three stations in Newton. About half of the Green Line stations are not accessible. One in every eight bus stops are not accessible. The unreliability of elevators hinders riders every day.

Accessibility barriers are highest for people with disabilities. But full accessibility benefits us all: caretakers pushing strollers, travelers with suitcases, children starting to walk, older people beginning to walk more gingerly or see with more difficulty. Systems designed for everyone work better for everyone.

Newton’s three inaccessible commuter rail stations are a perfect case in point. We are encouraged by the MBTA’s commitment to bring these stations to final design for rebuilds. Thousands of riders (and prospective riders) who are underserved by the inaccessible, single-sided platform stations served by steep, long stairs at Newtonville, West Newton, and Auburndale are eager for construction to begin. Likewise, residents moving into new housing view frequent, accessible service as essential.

When the MassPike extension came through Newton (and Boston) in the early 1960s, the state all but destroyed passenger rail service here. The Newton Corner station was eliminated. The remaining stations were left with just one platform on one side. A legacy of skeletal service remains to this day. Because of the platform configuration (the only stations like this in Massachusetts), there’s almost no service mid-day, and essentially no reverse commuting opportunities.

Where do the Newton stations stand today? To its credit, the MBTA is advancing the design of all three stations. The MBTA has committed $15 million to bring these designs to be ready to bid for construction. Later this year, the design will be at the 75 percent stage, with an anticipated public meeting to review progress, answer questions, and take comments. This will also be an opportunity to update the cost estimates for these stations, for which the working number has been $170 million.

Next year, in 2024, the MBTA will update its Capital Investment Plan (CIP). The five-year CIP is the list of every MBTA infrastructure project, including stations, fleet, tracks, signals, bridges, electrification, and more. Understandably, the current CIP made safety the priority, and we expect that it remains the Number 1 priority until the T has made needed progress.

Importantly, the CIP also includes significant investments in accessibility, with 95 projects across the system accounting for over $2 billion of investments over the next five years. But considering how long the MBTA has been planning to replace Newton’s rail stations, and how long construction will take, the sooner these stations are approved in the CIP, the better. And residents in many other cities and towns face the same challenges.

Newton’s local, state, and federal legislators are fully on board. Newton’s state delegation successfully obtained almost half the construction cost in the most recent Transportation Bond Bill, while Rep. Jake Auchincloss won a federal earmark and continues to advocate for federal funding with the US Department of Transportation. Newton’s commuter rail stations are a strong candidate for the next grant round of the federal “All Stations Accessibility Program,” which is funding transit projects all over the country as part of the 2021 Bipartisan Infrastructure Law. Funding is coming into place.

The Newton stations are part of the next generation of a stronger regional rail network. The MBTA’s plan for electrified rail with frequent service via accessible stations will transform public transit across eastern Massachusetts. It’s time to leverage commuter rail. The hundreds of miles of track will allow us to address our challenges of congestion, pollution, and unlocking economic development.

Critically, accessible Newton stations with double platforms and frequent service as part of a regional rail network are essential to meeting the need for housing. The MBTA Communities Act, and a revitalized, fully accessible MBTA are two sides of the same coin. Our housing crisis is intertwined with our transportation challenges.

For Massachusetts to thrive, we must provide housing options that are affordable and close to walkable, transit-served neighborhoods. Newton continues to make important strides in creating new housing, particularly multi-family housing and mixed-use developments that provide accessible living. At the same time as we have housing for people of all means across Massachusetts, we must ensure that our public transit network is modernized, reliable, convenient, safe, and accessible.

To redeem the commitment made when the ADA became the national law of the land in 1990, public transportation must be accessible to everyone. The ADA guarantees that people with disabilities have the same opportunities as everyone else; let’s live up to that promise. We are grateful to the MBTA and state leaders for sharing this commitment.

US Rep. Jake Auchincloss represents the Fourth Congressional District of Massachusetts. Ruthanne Fuller is the mayor, Cynthia Creem is a state senator, and Kay Khan and Ruth Balser are state representatives — all from Newton. John Lawn Jr. is a state representative from Watertown.

The post How long will Newton have to wait for accessible commuter rail stations? appeared first on CommonWealth Beacon.

AS THE COMMONWEALTH moves forward with its ambitious mandate to achieve net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050, it’s essential that we have a real plan for implementing a real solution. Failure to adopt a concrete plan at best means piecemeal, uncoordinated and inefficient action. At worst, it could mean major disruption and harm to workers and ratepayers.

A full 27 percent of the state’s emissions come from buildings, mostly from burning gas for heat, cooking, and hot water, meaning that any plan to significantly reduce emissions must address the building sector.

Climate-harming emissions are not the only problem caused by using gas in buildings. It’s unhealthy – burning it spews harmful pollutants and carcinogens into the air both inside and outside the home. It’s unsafe – explosions resulting from old, deteriorating gas pipelines have caused several recent tragedies in Massachusetts and elsewhere. It’s increasingly expensive – not only in the bills ratepayers must now pay for costly gas, but also in the charges we will be expected to pay (think in terms of billions of dollars) for pipe replacement already scheduled far into the future.

The global consensus is that we must quickly discontinue gas use to avert catastrophic warming. But knowing we need to get the Commonwealth’s two million homes off gas and figuring out how to do this are radically different animals.

Fortunately, the Future of Clean Heat Act charts a viable course for the Commonwealth. It sets out a comprehensive strategy over the next 25 years for an efficient, cost-effective, and just transition from the current system – where buildings are heated by combusting fuels that are hazardous to health, safety, and the climate – to a system where buildings are heated and cooled with clean, renewable thermal energy like heat pumps.

The bill incentivizes gas companies to reinvent themselves as clean thermal energy companies so that instead of perpetually replacing aging gas pipes, they electrify neighborhoods and install geothermal energy networks in which buildings are efficiently heated and cooled by ground temperatures. The law would require gas companies to make specific and robust plans for the transition off gas and report on their progress annually. Importantly, the bill provides funding for low- and moderate-income customers who cannot afford to electrify their homes without assistance, and it requires the retention and retraining of skilled gas workers who might otherwise be displaced.

Massachusetts gas companies were required last year to submit a plan for reducing their greenhouse gas emissions. But the “clean and renewable solution” they put forth is dangerous, unrealistic, and expensive, while making only a modest dent in emissions. Their proposal would continue business as usual — pumping combustible gas into pipes — with a few added twists to make them appear climate-friendly.

The hallmark of their “clean energy” claims is replacing fossil-sourced methane with methane from landfills and agriculture, which is called biomethane. However, methane – regardless of where it hails from – is still methane, traveling through the same leaky pipes and producing the same carbon when burned, resulting in a big emissions footprint. Biomethane is also expensive to produce and almost impossible to deliver in the volume that would be needed.

Even worse, gas companies are proposing to mix up to 20 percent hydrogen into biomethane – an extremely inefficient and expensive gas to produce cleanly. Adding hydrogen exacerbates the health and safety problems already present in the current gas system because it is more explosive than methane and releases the lung irritant nitrogen dioxide when burned.

Gas companies are hyping this climate “solution” so that they can maintain their very profitable business model of spending billions of ratepayer dollars replacing gas pipes – to the tune of $40 billion over the next few decades. If you had $40 billion to spend, and an urgent need to address climate change, would you continue to prop up dead-end, greenhouse gas emitting infrastructure or invest it in a real clean energy solution?

The roadmap laid out in the Future of Clean Heat Act is carefully considered. It puts the safety and health of the public first, facilitates an equitable transition off gas, and, most importantly, significantly reduces emissions to diminish climate change and protect the planet.

We have neither time nor resources to waste to meet our climate goals. Let’s pass The Future of Clean Heat Act to chart our path to a safer, healthier, and livable future.

Cynthia Creem is chair of the Senate Committee on Global Warming and Climate Change. Jennifer Armini and Steven Owens sit on the House Committee on Global Warming and Climate Change.

The post We must pursue a real plan for net-zero emissions by 2050 appeared first on CommonWealth Beacon.

IT IS INCREDULOUS that an opinion piece about the 2022 election and role of women in Massachusetts government completely ignores the women of the Massachusetts Senate. The role of women in the Senate has never been stronger. The majority leader, president emeritus, and vice chair of the ways and means committee are women. But, most importantly, the leader of the Massachusetts Senate for nearly the last five years—Senate President Karen E. Spilka—is a woman.

Under  Spilka’s leadership, the Senate passed comprehensive first-in-the-nation behavioral health and climate change bills, oversaw significant increases in funding for K-12 early education, implemented a bill ensuring all children get healthy meals at school, and worked through criminal justice and police reforms, just to name a few. When we talk about women’s civil rights, it was the Senate that initiated change in the law to make a woman’s reproductive rights legal in Massachusetts. Most of these initiatives have become law. All under the leadership of Spilka.

Most recently, women in the Senate were the initial sponsors of the language to protect providers delivering reproductive and abortion care, increase access to contraception, and ensure women remain in control of late-term pregnancy care. The Senate passed that language by bi-partisan unanimous vote.

For Spilka, leadership of the Senate is the capstone on a long and fruitful political career. Spilka was the force behind the state’s Paid Family and Medical Leave and pay equity bills, now law. She also chaired the Economic Development and Emerging Technologies Committee as Massachusetts came out of the 2008 economic downturn, producing a bill—also now law—that streamlined how businesses access state services to help businesses locate, stay, and grow here.

For generations women have fought for a place at the table. It has a been a long and difficult fight and it has been frustrating and at times depressing. It is equally frustrating when women fail to recognize those women in the Bay State who are truly powerful leaders, like Senate President Spilka.

As Barbara Lee rightfully stated in her commentary, “When women and girls see women in positions of power, they can cut through stereotypes to imagine themselves in similar roles.” Being the Massachusetts Senate president is a critical role we need future generations of women to not only imagine themselves in, but aspire to as well.

Cynthia Stone Creem is the majority leader of the Massachusetts Senate and Cindy F. Friedman is the Senate chair of the Committee on Healthcare Financing and vice chair of the Senate Ways and Mean Committee.

The post Big omission in commentary on women in government appeared first on CommonWealth Beacon.

IMAGINE WAKING UP in the morning and seeing an image of hate painted on the front door of the apartment you’ve rented for years. This image is meant to target you and your family. Or imagine that an anti-Semitic group learns that a Jewish family lives nearby. One night the ringleader of the group goes to the home and paints a large swastika on a neighbor’s fence across the street. The following morning, as the parents open the front door and usher their children off to school, they are horrified to discover the image right in front of them. Suddenly—even in their own home—they are overwhelmed with anxiety, terrified for their children’s safety. Over the past year, we have seen more and more of these incidents occurring in our schools, appearing in our neighborhoods and our communities.

You might expect, and certainly those parents would expect, that the perpetrators of these attacks would be charged with a hate crime. Unfortunately, in Massachusetts, you’d be wrong. Why? Because the door and the fence don’t belong to the families that were targeted.

Right now, when a person damages or defaces property in order to intimidate a victim based on the victim’s race, religion, sexual orientation, or other protected status, that person can only be prosecuted for a hate crime if the property belongs to the victim. This means that victims who rent apartments, live in our college dorms, or are targeted at work are not protected by our current laws. When a perpetrator evades accountability through this loophole, victims feel vulnerable and exposed, and the perpetrator feels emboldened.

Although a perpetrator may be charged with destruction of property, this does not reflect what actually happened and, even if restitution is ordered, the owner is not obligated to remove the damage.

That’s why we recently filed legislation to close this loophole and ensure that the hate crime statute protects all Massachusetts residents. Under our bill, damaging property to intimidate victims based on their protected status is a hate crime, regardless of whether the victims own the property that was damaged. The bill also requires property owners to use any restitution they receive to repair the property damage, ensuring that victims are not continually re-traumatized by an image of hate. It’s frightening enough to find a bigoted message scrawled on your apartment building. Nobody should have to face such a message day after day after day.

Incidents of hate have been on the rise in recent years in the Commonwealth. According to the Center for the Study of Hate and Extremism, the number of anti-Asian hate crimes in Boston more than doubled between 2019 and 2020. At the same time, the pandemic has laid bare the inequities—racial and otherwise—that exist in housing, health care, education, and the justice system.

We know that closing the loophole in the hate crime statute won’t suddenly bring an end to white supremacy, anti-Semitism, or other forms of hatred. We know that it won’t remedy all the inequities that exist throughout our social, political, and economic systems. We also know that perpetrators of hateful acts are avoiding accountability, that victims aren’t receiving the protection of the law and that our bill will address those problems immediately.

Part of addressing these incidents involves naming them as hate crimes and making clear that hate and bigotry have no place in our communities. Our bill is a solution that the Legislature should prioritize.

Cynthia Creem is a state senator from Newton. Marian Ryan is the Middlesex County district attorney. Christine Barber is a state representative from Somerville. 

The post Closing a hate-crime loophole appeared first on CommonWealth Beacon.