facebook should not be banned essay

Band 7+: Should Facebook be banned or not. Show your point of view.

In this modern globalised faced paced world, there is an opinion that Facebook has only drawbacks and should be banned. However, there is a controversial statement because social media platforms have advantages and disadvantages. Thus, in my opinion this website has more positives than negatives.

To begin with, I’d like to outline the advantages as in our digitalised world, Facebook could be used for educational purpose as an effective and efficient tool. For example, one advantage is for delivering and developing comprehensive communication skills. As a result, this prepares future generation for being leaders and holders of active positions in an incredibly thrilling world.

On the other hand, huge involvement in social media could greatly ruin and restrict students’ minds from the main aspect of education. Additionally, this immersion turns into addiction. Furthermore, this could lead to Tourette syndrome which is a tic syndrome. Consequently, this reduces students’ attention and decrease school marks. As a result, it gives anxiety and health problems such as tiredness and insomnia.

In conclusion, while there are valid concerns about the drawbacks of Facebook, particularly in the context of excessive use leading to negative outcomes such as addiction, attention issues, and potential health problems, it is essential to consider the platform’s benefits. Facebook, when used sensibly, can be a powerful tool for educational purposes and for enhancing communication skills, which are crucial in today’s fast-paced, digitalised world. It can prepare the future generation for leadership and active roles in society. Therefore, despite its negatives, Facebook offers significant positives that can contribute to personal and educational development. The key lies in balancing its use and leveraging its advantages while being aware of and mitigating its disadvantages.

Check Your Own Essay On This Topic?

Generate a band-9 sample with your idea, overall band score, task response, coherence & cohesion, lexical resource, grammatical range & accuracy, other topics:, some people believe that governments should implement policies such as taxes on unhealthy foods and subsidies for healthy options to combat obesity. to what extent do you agree or disagree with this statement.

I agree with this statement to a high degree. Governments can implement policies such as taxes on unhealthy foods and subsidies for healthy choices to combat obesity and encourage healthy lifestyles. First, the positive impact on public health: Unhealthy foods, such as fast food, sweets and sugary drinks, are often high in calories and unhealthy […]

Friends and family bring more happiness than money and possessions. How far do you agree with this statement?

In today’s era, where the pursuit of happiness is emphasized, there’s a prevailing belief that having strong social connections and spending quality time with family contributes more to happiness than amassing material wealth. I wholeheartedly agree with this assertion. On one hand, it’s undeniable that money and possessions play a crucial role in our daily […]

The increase use of mobile phone and computers makes people lose the ability to communicate face to face. To what extent do you agree or disagree?

Currently, in the context of strong mobile phone and computer development, people have found various useful extensions of these devices. Several people are asserting that this situation makes for reducing the interpersonal in reality life. From my perspective, partly disagree with this opinion. because it can be seen that electronic devices still play a crucial […]

Successful sports professional can earn a great deal more money than people in other important professions. Some people think that this is fully justified while others think it is unfair. Discuss both the views and give your opinion.

Nowadays, many people argue that professional athletes earn a great deal money than people in other important professions. At the same time, some people think that the situation is preciesly justified while others think it is unfair. In today’s world, every job is valuable for people. Therefore, pupils should show respect to every jobs. However, […]

Some experts believe that it is better for children to begin learning a foreign language at primary schools rather than secondary schools.

Nowadays foriegn language is more useful for to begin providing with education at primary school rather than other part .It is some benefits as well as drawbacks of this which l will discuss in this essay. The three main advantages of learn other language are children ‘s time spend better , boost in country’s education […]

some people believe that the advent of economical air travel has been very beneficial by making international travel more accessible, while others argue that it has had a very negative impact. discuss both views and give your own opinions.

Travelling allover the world has became much easier than in the past it makes the world as a small village you can reach your destination anytime , by a Comfortable and time consuming vehicles through air travel by planes. everyday there is an evolutionary changes in the types of plans and system of reservations, so […]

Plans & Pricing

• Press & Media
• Monthly Influencer Marketing Campaign
• Monthly Social Media Interactions
• Monthly Website Maintenance
• Monthly PR service
• Monthly ADS management
• Monthly Content Writing
• Social Media Automation Service
• Social Media Monthly Growth Plans

• Your cart is currently empty.
• Should Facebook Be Banned? Pros and Cons of the Debate

Facebook has become one of the most widely used social media networks in the world, with millions of users logging in every day to stay connected with friends and family, share their thoughts and opinions, or even just pass the time. But recently, there have been many debates about whether or not the platform should be banned due to privacy concerns, mental health issues, and government regulations related to its use. In this article, we will explore the arguments for and against banning Facebook, as well as discuss the role of government in regulating social media usage.

Influencer Marketing Expertin bei Adfluencer. Mag Tennis, Brettspiele und TikTok.

View all posts

What is Facebook?

Facebook is a social networking site that was founded by Mark Zuckerberg in 2004 with the mission statement “to give people the power to share and make the world more open and connected”. The platform allows users to create profiles, post pictures, videos, links, status updates, and more; it also enables people to message each other privately or join groups that are related to their interests or hobbies. Although it started as a fun way for college students to stay connected with each other online, it has since evolved into one of the largest online communities in existence with over 2 billion active users worldwide.

Pros and Cons of Facebook

There are Serviceh pros and cons when it comes to using Facebook as a communication tool or for entertainment purposes. On one hand, it can be a great way for people to stay connected with friends who live far away; it can also help businesses reach new customers through targeted advertisements or by creating pages dedicated solely to their products or services. On the other hand, however, there are some potential drawbacks such as privacy concerns due to how much personal information users must provide when signing up for an account (e.g., name/address/phone number) as well as potential security risks associated with sharing too much information publicly (i.e., photos/videos).

Facebook Growth Service

Privacy concerns on facebook.

The issue of privacy has been a major concern surrounding Facebook since its inception; however recent events such as Cambridge Analytica have highlighted just how much data can be collected from user profiles without their knowledge or consent – something which could potentially lead to identity theft or financial fraud if not properly regulated by governments around the world. As such, many people have called for stricter laws when it comes to data protection so that companies like Facebook cannot abuse user data for their gain without any repercussions from authorities or legal action taken against them by consumers who feel wronged by their practices.

Impact of Social Media Addiction on Mental Health

Another argument often made against allowing people unrestricted access to platforms like Facebook is that they can become addicted – leading them down a path towards depression or anxiety due to constantly comparing themselves with others online (known as “social comparison”). This type of behavior can lead individuals into believing they need material items they don’t need (such as cars/clothes/jewelry) which can cause financial problems further down the line if not addressed early enough – especially if they are already struggling financially due to unemployment or low wages etcetera. Therefore some believe that banning certain platforms altogether may be necessary to protect vulnerable individuals from falling prey to these types of addictions which could ultimately endanger their mental health if left unchecked for too long periods.

The Role of Government in Regulating Social Media Usage

Governments should play an active role in protecting citizens from any potential harm caused by social media usage – whether this involves introducing tougher regulations on how companies collect user data (as mentioned previously), providing better education about cyberbullying prevention strategies etcetera – but at what point does regulation become censorship? This is something that needs careful consideration before any decisions are made regarding banning certain websites altogether because while some may argue that freedom of speech should be protected no matter what; there are also valid reasons why certain content may need restricting depending on its nature e.g., hate speech etcetera.

Arguments For and Against Banning Facebook

Those who support banning platforms like Facebook believe that doing so would reduce cyberbullying incidents significantly while also helping protect vulnerable individuals from becoming addicted; however, opponents argue that this would only serve as a temporary solution since there will always be other ways for people to communicate online if given enough motivation (e-mail/messaging apps, etc). Furthermore, research has shown that restricting access may increase feelings of loneliness amongst those who rely heavily upon these types of services, making them more likely to suffer from depression & anxiety – thus making complete bans ineffective & potentially damaging overall. Ultimately though it seems clear that any decision regarding banning websites should take into account Serviceh sides before being implemented – otherwise we risk creating an environment where freedom of expression becomes limited instead of encouraged.

In conclusion, although there are valid arguments Serviceh for and against banning websites like Facebook; ultimately any decision made should take into account all aspects before being implemented – including potential implications on freedom of expression & privacy concerns – so that everyone involved can benefit from such measures rather than suffer unnecessarily due its implementation. Furthermore, governments should also play an active role in regulating social media usage so that citizens remain safe while still having access to enjoy all its benefits without fear of repercussions from authorities. Finally, we invite you to check out our social media marketing services here at Adfluencer – A German social media & influencer marketing agency based in Nürnberg – where we offer comprehensive solutions tailored specifically towards your individual needs & goals.

Is Facebook Gonna Be Banned?

Many countries have temporarily banned or restricted access to Facebook. Use of the Website is also restricted in various ways in other countries. The only countries that continue to block access to the social networking site as of July 2022 are China Iran North Korea Uganda and Russia.

Should social media be banned or not?

In conclusion, social media should not be banned as it plays a vital role in our daily life by enhancing social interactions and facilitating business practices. It shapes how we connect to access and share information among our colleagues.

What is banned on Facebook?

There are many reasons why someone ends up in Facebook jail. Nudity or provocative posts. Facebook has an automatic policy to block users who share harmful content. Hate speech and personal attacks. Facebook prohibits any user or group from posting threats against any person on any page or group.

Should Facebook Whatsapp and Twitter be banned permanently?

Despite some benefits, these social networking services often violate customer privacy freedom of speech, and manipulation of collected information and should be banned forever.

What would happen if Facebook shut down?

If Facebook ceased to exist you would lose messages photos friends work connections and many other things. Like a dead hard drive if Facebook shuts down you will be disconnected from most of your digital life.

Facebook will end live streaming capabilities for its e-commerce brands on October 1 2022 two years after the introduction of live shopping. Why Facebook’s parent company Meta is focusing its resources on short-form video.

• International edition
• Australia edition
• Europe edition

Facebook is a harmful presence in our lives. It’s not too late to pull the plug on it

Undaunted by scandals, the social media giant plans to tighten its grip on our everyday activities. We don’t have to just submit

F acebook is in perpetual crisis mode. For years now, the company has confronted waves of critical scrutiny on issues caused or exacerbated by the platform. Recent revelations have lengthened the charge sheet.

That list includes the mass data collection and privacy invasion by Cambridge Analytica ; the accusations of Russian interference during the 2016 presidential election; unrestrained hate speech, inciting, among other things, genocide in Myanmar ; the viral spread of disinformation about the coronavirus and vaccines, with Joe Biden proclaiming about Facebook and other social media platforms: “They’re killing people”. Add to that Facebook Marketplace: with a billion users buying and selling goods, ProPublica found a growing pool of scammers and fraudsters exploiting the site, with Facebook failing “to safeguard users”.

The latest wave of investigative reporting focused on the company, meanwhile, comes from the Wall Street Journal’s Facebook Files series. After pouring over a cache of the company’s internal documents, the WSJ reported that “Facebook’s researchers have identified the platform’s ill effects”. For instance, the company downplayed findings that using Instagram can have significant impacts on the mental health of teenage girls. Meanwhile, it has been implementing strategies to attract more preteen users to Instagram. The platform’s algorithm is designed to foster more user engagement in any way possible, including by sowing discord and rewarding outrage . This issue was raised by Facebook’s integrity team, which also proposed changes to the algorithm that would suppress, rather than accelerate, such animus between users. These solutions were struck down by Facebook’s chief executive, Mark Zuckerberg, because he prioritised growing engagement above other objectives.

What’s more, the WSJ reported, Facebook employees “ raised alarms ” about drug cartels and human traffickers in developing countries using the platform, but the company’s response has been anaemic. Perhaps because executives are, yet again, hesitant to impede growth in these rapidly expanding markets.

This is consistent with claims by Facebook whistleblower Frances Haugen, who said at the weekend, in an interview with 60 Minutes , “Facebook, over and over again, has shown it chooses profit over safety.” It also emerged that Haugen has filed at least eight complaints with the US financial watchdog over Facebook’s approach to safety. Haugen testified before the US Senate on Tuesday, backing up her revelations. “I’m here today because I believe Facebook’s products harm children, stoke division and weaken our democracy,” she said. “The company’s leadership knows how to make Facebook and Instagram safer, but won’t make the necessary changes because they have put their astronomical profits before people.” We shouldn’t be surprised that making money hand over fist is any company’s primary motivation. But here we have further evidence that Facebook is a uniquely socially toxic platform.

Despite the executive team’s awareness of these serious problems, despite congressional hearings and scripted pledges to do better, despite Zuckerberg’s grandiose mission statements that change with the tides of public pressure, Facebook continues to shrug off the great responsibility that comes with the great power and wealth it has accumulated.

Each surging wave builds on the last, hitting Facebook even harder, enveloping it in scandal after scandal. In response, the company has decided to go on the offensive – rather than truly address any of its problems.

In August, Zuckerberg signed off on an initiative called Project Amplify , which aims to use Facebook’s news feed “to show people positive stories about the social network”, according to the New York Times . By pushing pro-Facebook stories, including some “written by the company”, it hopes to influence how users perceive the platform. Facebook is no longer happy to just let others use the news feed to propagate misinformation and exert influence – it wants to wield this tool for its own interests, too.

With Project Amplify under way, Facebook is mounting a serious defence against the WSJ Facebook Files. In an article posted on Facebook Newsroom by Nick Clegg, Facebook’s vice-president of global affairs, , accusations of “deliberate mischaracterisations” by the WSJ reporters are lobbed in without supplying any specific details or corrections. Similarly, in an internal memo sent by Clegg to pre-empt Haugen’s interview, Clegg rejected any responsibility for Facebook being “the primary cause of polarisation”, blamed the prevalence of extreme views on individual bad actors like “a rogue uncle” and provided talking points for employees who might “get questions from friends and families about these things”.

It’s all spin, with no substance. A trained politician deflecting accusations while planting seeds of doubt in the public’s mind without acknowledging or addressing the problems at hand.

In another response to the WSJ, Facebook’s head of Instagram, Adam Mosseri, made a strange analogy between social media and cars: “We know that more people die than would otherwise because of car accidents, but by and large, cars create way more value in the world than they destroy,” Mosseri said. “And I think social media is similar.” Mosseri can no longer deny that platforms like his are forces for destruction. His tactic is to convince us that a simple cost-benefit analysis comes out in his favour. He happens to elide the fact that cars cause more than crashes; they are also responsible for systemic social and environmental consequences at every level. Of course, this is exactly the kind of self-interested myopia we should expect from a tech executive under fire.

Beyond pushing back against critical reporting, however, an initiative like Project Amplify should be understood as Facebook attempting to pave the way for its deeper penetration into every facet of our reality. After all, when asked last year by Congress why Facebook is not a monopoly, Zuckerberg said it’s because he views all possible modes of “ people connecting with other people ” as a form of competition for his business. And if we know anything about Facebook, they are very good at capturing market share and crushing competitors – no matter what it takes.

Facebook needs users to form an intimate relationship with the platform. In quick succession this summer, it announced two new products that represent the company’s next planned phase of existence – both its own and ours.

First is the “ metaverse ”. Named after an explicitly dystopian sci-fi idea , the metaverse is, for now, pitched as essentially a virtual reality office – accessed through VR goggles like Facebook Oculus – where you go to see colleagues, attend meetings, and give presentations without having to leave home. Zuckerberg proclaimed that over the next five years, Facebook “will effectively transition from people seeing us as primarily being a social media company to being a metaverse company.”

Second is Ray-Ban Stories, Facebook’s attempt to succeed where Google Glass failed. Ray-Ban Stories are pitched as a frictionless way to stay constantly connected to Facebook and Instagram without that pesky smartphone getting in the way. Now you can achieve the dream of sharing every moment of your day with Facebook – and the valuable data produced from it – without ever needing to think about it.

Importantly, access to both kinds of reality – virtual and augmented – are mediated by Facebook. The executives at Facebook would like you to believe that the company is now a permanent fixture in society. That a platform primarily designed to supercharge targeted advertisements has earned the right to mediate not just our access to information or connection but our perception of reality. And Facebook’s aggressive attempts to combat any scepticism, combined with its reality-shaping ambitions, shows how desperate it is to convince us to accept the social poison it peddles and ask for more.

Days before Facebook’s latest congressional hearing – this time on the mental impacts of Instagram on teenagers – Mosseri announced his team was pausing Instagram Kids, a service aimed at people under 13 years old, and developing “parental supervision tools”. It seems yet again that they will do the bare minimum only when forced to do so. Speaking about this change of direction in her Senate hearing, Haugen was sceptical: “I would be sincerely surprised if they do not continue working on Instagram Kids, and I would be amazed if a year from now we don’t have this conversation again.”

For Facebook, all this negative attention amounts to an image problem: bad publicity that can be counteracted by good propaganda. For the rest of us, this is indicative that Facebook doesn’t just have a problem; Facebook is the problem. Ultimately, an overwhelming case is growing against Facebook’s right to even exist, let alone continue enjoying unrestricted operation and expansion.

We must not forget that Facebook is still young. It was founded in 2004, but didn’t really come into itself, becoming the behemoth we know today, until going public in 2012, buying Instagram for $1bn (£760m) that same year and then acquiring WhatsApp for $19bn two years later. True to its original informal motto – “Move fast and break things” – Facebook has wasted no time wreaking a well-documented path of destruction.

When Facebook, Instagram and WhatsApp temporarily went offline this week due to a technical problem , we saw just how dependent we have already become on these services for so many everyday activities. It was a shock to suddenly be without them. The company would probably see this as evidence that our lives are too intertwined with its services for them to ever go away. But, as the company has proven time and time again, our interests and its interests are rarely aligned. We should instead recognise that allowing a rapacious company to design and own critical infrastructure with zero accountability is the worst of all possible options.

If its executives want to compare social media to cars, then at the very least this dangerous technology must be subjected to the same level of heavy regulation and independent oversight as the automotive industry. Otherwise, Facebook must be reminded that it’s not too late for the public to pull the plug on this social experiment gone wrong. Right now, almost any alternative would be better.

Jathan Sadowski is a research fellow in the emerging technologies research lab at Monash University, Melbourne, Australia

• Social networking
• Social media
• Digital media

Most viewed

The Unintended Consequences of Banning Social Media

Severely limiting teen access to social media might do more harm than good..

Posted February 20, 2023 | Reviewed by Vanessa Lancaster

• What Changes During Adolescence?
• Find a therapist to support kids and teens
• Severely limiting social media might have serious unintended consequences for teens.
• State legislation limiting social media often doesn't take complexity or nuance into account.
• Such legislation will likely have no measurable impact on improving youth mental health.
• States should consider investing in widespread media literacy education instead of attempting to limit access.

I recently attended a mental health and social media symposium organized by Spencer Cox, the governor of my home state of Utah. Cox threw down the gauntlet :

"There is a compounding effect [of social media] that is impacting all of us and I am deeply worried about it. I know we have some social media companies in the room; we're glad you're here. We are putting you on notice. You have some options. You can fight, and that's fine. We're ready for the fight. Or you can join us and be part of the solution."

The message from several speakers at the conference was very clear:

Social media is harming our youth and is responsible for the increase of mental health struggles over the past decade. We should ban social media and every responsible parent agrees with us. Social media companies are greedy and knowingly did harm, comparable to the executives who perpetrated the opioid crisis.

Social media has become the ultimate scapegoat of our time. As large social media companies rake in billions, it is easy to cast them in the role of the villain. Adolescent anxiety and depression have risen over the past decade, and we want someone to blame.

As a result, states are suing social media companies for being responsible for mental health problems in their community. Legislators across the country are debating whether social media is responsible for the increase in mental health problems in youth.

In my state, there was a bill being introduced that was considering an outright ban on social media for anyone under the age of 18. The bill was softened slightly to require parent ID for any underage youth. Other states have introduced similar bills to significantly limit youth access to social media.

As a collective nation, we are at a fever pitch and out for blood. There is just one problem with this collective anger : It’s not supported by the research.

I am a social media scholar and have been studying the impact of media on children for twenty years. The collective research does not support banning social media and suggests it might harm some youth in the process.

Most serious social media scholars are left shaking our heads with the over-confident and definitive statements we hear from politicians and the press. The public discussion is dominated by some loud voices who are quick to point fingers but slow to consult the full body of research, which shows considerable nuance and complexity.

Can we just stop and take a breath for a minute? Consider that perhaps we might be going in the wrong direction.

The kids are struggling, but that doesn’t mean taking away social media will fix anything. Here are several reasons to believe that social media is not the cause of all our youth’s ills:

1. The link between social media and mental health is not as big as you think.

In fact, many studies show that it might even be negligible. For example, meta-analyses bringing together all the studies on this topic tend to bring back correlations of around .10, depending on the study, like the difference in height between a 15- and 16-year-old girl . This is really quite small considering the attention we have been giving this question.

Indeed, our research examined the time spent on social media, depression , and anxiety across the entire course of adolescence . We did not find a noticeable effect of social media on mental health when examined at the individual level. I was surprised, and it went against my hypothesis (gasp!). But I had to face the realization that this effect just isn’t as big as we thought it was.

The effects become larger (around .25, maybe comparable to the difference in height between a 15 and a 17-year-old girl) when we consider a teen who says they have “problems” with social media. Reducing problems around media (as opposed to the sheer time by banning social media) may be a more prudent way forward. (More on this below.)

2. The small and inconsistent findings might be about individual differences.

Some recent work out of the Netherlands suggests that the vast majority (92 percent) of adolescents have either a neutral or positive experience in terms of mental health after using social media. Using an assessment that measures how people feel in the moment, they were able to capture how adolescents felt while using social media. For the vast majority? They were just fine.

However, there is the question of that 8 percent struggle after being on social media. There are many explanations for why this might be the case. They could have had negative experiences online, such as being cyberbullied or excluded. They could be high on levels of rejection sensitivity , being fine-tuned to notice a social slight. They might have pre-existing body image concerns and spend their time on pro-anorexia sites . Or it might be something completely different. What the research suggests is that the vast majority of adolescents do quite well on social media, while a small minority do not.

3. Banning (or severely limiting) social media will likely hurt our most vulnerable adolescents. It might even be fatal.

When we think about depression and anxiety from a multifaceted lens, we recognize that some adolescents are much more vulnerable than others. These teens are often those who experience minority stress — unique stressors that occur in an adolescent’s environment as a result of their minority status.

This might include LGBTQ+ teens who might be the only “out” person at their school, who have to tolerate hearing gay slurs as they walk down the hallway. Or Black adolescents growing up in a predominantly white neighborhood who experience subtle (and often not so subtle) racism on a daily basis.

Research suggests that social media can provide a safe haven for these adolescents — a place where they can truly belong. Where they see others who are “like them.” Where they can find a real community that understands the stressors they go through each day.

Having a sense of belongingness is a huge protective factor against suicide . Thus, stripping away this sense of safety might have significant (and even deadly) unintended consequences for these youth that are already at risk.

Youth might also be turning to social media to cope with chaos and struggles in their lives. It might be that a teen has headphones on and is on social media to escape hearing his parents argue in the next room. Another might be getting support from online friends over something hard that happened at school. Yet another might struggle with social anxiety and experiences school as excruciating, yet has found online friends that make them feel like they can finally be themselves.

The experience of social media is extremely complex, and a complete ban will likely take away some truly positive coping skills for many.

4. Education , instead of fear , is likely the answer.

In our recent study , we found that time spent on social media had no effect on adolescent outcomes. However, body image was twice as good for teens who said they attended a school with a strong literacy program that helped them become healthy users of media. Depression, emotional problems, and conduct problems were also all reduced in such schools.

Instead of focusing so much on getting kids to put down their phones, instead of threatening to take phones away as a punishment , instead of overreacting as a country and banning a potentially useful tool that is a huge part of an adolescent’s social world, might we invest in education instead?

Imagine a world where every student had classes on digital literacy from an early age. Where they were taught not only how to use media but how to truly interpret it and to become critical thinkers of their media use. Imagine that adolescents utilized social media in ways that helped their mental health instead of hurting it. Where they had tools, and best practices to absolutely thrive in a digital environment.

Instead of being afraid and throwing out the baby with the bathwater, let’s step it up, America. Let’s invest in educating our youth at a national level, relying on balanced and accurate research to empower youth to truly take charge of their social media experiences for good.

Banning or severely limiting social media among adolescents is not the way forward and will have serious unintended consequences. It would be like letting a 16-year-old child drive without first having them take driver’s education. Instead of taking the keys away and randomly giving them back someday, can we please teach our kids to drive in this digital environment? It might just save a life.

A version of this post appears in the Salt Lake Tribune .

If you or someone you love is contemplating suicide, seek help immediately. For help 24/7, dial 988 for the National Suicide Prevention Lifeline, or reach out to the Crisis Text Line by texting TALK to 741741. To find a therapist, visit the Psychology Today Therapy Directory .

Sarah M. Coyne, Ph.D., is a professor of human development in the School of Family Life at Brigham Young University. She researches media, aggression, gender, and child development.

• Find a Therapist
• Find a Treatment Center
• Find a Psychiatrist
• Find a Support Group
• Find Teletherapy
• United States
• Brooklyn, NY
• Chicago, IL
• Houston, TX
• Los Angeles, CA
• New York, NY
• Portland, OR
• San Diego, CA
• San Francisco, CA
• Seattle, WA
• Washington, DC
• Asperger's
• Bipolar Disorder
• Chronic Pain
• Eating Disorders
• Passive Aggression
• Personality
• Goal Setting
• Positive Psychology
• Stopping Smoking
• Low Sexual Desire
• Relationships
• Child Development
• Therapy Center NEW
• Diagnosis Dictionary
• Types of Therapy

Understanding what emotional intelligence looks like and the steps needed to improve it could light a path to a more emotionally adept world.

• Coronavirus Disease 2019
• Affective Forecasting
• Neuroscience

Essay on Facebook should be banned

Facebook is one of the most widely used social media platforms in the world, with over 2 billion monthly active users. However, as the use of Facebook has become more prevalent, there have been growing concerns about its negative impact on society. Some argue that Facebook should be banned in order to protect users from the negative effects of social media.

One of the main arguments in favor of banning Facebook is that it can have a negative impact on mental health. Studies have shown that the use of social media can be linked to issues such as anxiety, depression, and loneliness. This is particularly true for individuals who spend a lot of time on social media and who compare their lives to the lives of others on the platform. By banning Facebook, it would help to reduce the amount of time people spend on social media, which would help to improve their mental health.

Another argument in favor of banning Facebook is that it can be a source of misinformation. Facebook has been criticized for its role in spreading fake news and misinformation. This can be particularly dangerous when it comes to issues such as politics and public health, as it can lead to the spread of false information and can have a negative impact on public opinion. By banning Facebook, it would help to reduce the spread of misinformation and fake news.

A ban on Facebook would also benefit privacy. Facebook has been criticized for its handling of user data and for its lack of transparency when it comes to data collection and sharing. Many users are unaware of the extent to which their personal information is being collected, shared, and used by the platform and third-party companies. A ban on Facebook would help to protect users’ personal information and privacy.

Despite the arguments in favor of banning Facebook, there are also some arguments against it. One of the main arguments against banning Facebook is that it would be difficult to enforce. With the widespread use of social media, it would be difficult to completely eliminate the use of Facebook.

Another argument against banning Facebook is that it would negatively impact businesses that use the platform to advertise and connect with customers. Facebook is an important marketing tool for many businesses, and a ban on the platform would have a significant impact on these businesses.

While Facebook is one of the most widely used social media platforms in the world, there are growing concerns about its negative impact on society. Some argue that Facebook should be banned in order to protect users from the negative effects of social media, such as mental health issues, misinformation, and privacy concerns. However, there are also arguments against a ban, such as the difficulty of enforcement and the impact on businesses that use the platform. Instead of an outright ban, governments and Facebook could implement policies to mitigate the negative effects of the platform such as strict regulations on data collection and sharing, and monitoring and removal of misinformation, also providing users with more control over their data and privacy settings. Additionally, education campaigns on the responsible use of social media and its potential negative effects could be carried out to help users make informed decisions about their use of the platform. Ultimately, the goal should be to strike a balance between the benefits of social media and the protection of users from its negative effects.

Learning With Guru

A Place To Learn Online

10 Lines Subject

Learn Important subjects in 10 Lines. An essay provides a condensed overview of the key points and arguments related to a topic, offering readers a brief understanding of its content.

Learn To Write Essays

To improve your essay writing skills, read widely, develop strong arguments, and structure your essay coherently. Edit and revise carefully. Practice makes perfect!

Application Writing

For strong applications, research the organization, tailor content to requirements, highlight relevant skills, proofread for errors, and be professional, concise, and authentic.

Facebook Should be Banned | Speech In English

Dear Friends, Today, I would like to present a viewpoint that may be controversial but deserves our thoughtful consideration: the idea that Facebook should be banned . Facebook, as one of the most prominent social media platforms, has undoubtedly had a profound impact on our lives. However, it is crucial for us, as students, to critically examine its implications and question whether its benefits outweigh its drawbacks.

Firstly, let us acknowledge the positive aspects of Facebook. It has provided a means for connecting with friends and family across distances, allowing us to share our lives and experiences. It has also facilitated the exchange of information, helping us stay informed about current events, news, and trends. Furthermore, Facebook has served as a platform for organizing events, raising awareness about social issues, and supporting various causes. It has empowered individuals and communities to come together, fostering a sense of belonging and collective action.

However, we must also consider the negative impacts associated with Facebook. One significant concern is the issue of privacy. Facebook has been embroiled in controversies surrounding the misuse and mishandling of user data. Our personal information, thoughts, and preferences are stored and often exploited for targeted advertising. This raises ethical questions about the extent to which our privacy is respected and the potential consequences of this exploitation.

Another concerning aspect is the impact of Facebook on mental health. Research has indicated a correlation between excessive use of social media platforms like Facebook and feelings of loneliness, depression, and anxiety. The constant exposure to carefully curated, idealized versions of others’ lives can foster feelings of inadequacy and negatively impact our self-esteem. Moreover, the addictive nature of Facebook can lead to excessive screen time, taking a toll on our overall well-being and productivity.

Furthermore, Facebook has been a platform for the spread of misinformation and the manipulation of public opinion. Fake news, conspiracy theories, and misleading content can easily go viral, leading to significant social and political ramifications. This poses a threat to the integrity of democratic processes and the objective dissemination of accurate information. The responsibility to verify the authenticity of information lies with both the platform and its users, and there are concerns that Facebook has not done enough to address this issue adequately.

Considering these concerns, the question arises: should Facebook be banned? While an outright ban may be extreme, it is essential for us, as responsible users, to advocate for stricter regulations and improved transparency. Facebook should be held accountable for protecting our privacy, combating the spread of misinformation, and fostering a healthier digital environment. By engaging in dialogue, raising awareness, and demanding change, we can push for a safer and more ethical social media landscape.

Additionally, as individuals, we have the power to control our own Facebook usage. We can set boundaries, limit our screen time, and be discerning about the content we consume and share. It is crucial to maintain a critical mindset, fact-check information, and engage in respectful and constructive online interactions. By taking responsibility for our own actions and promoting responsible digital citizenship, we can mitigate the negative impacts of Facebook.

In conclusion, the question of whether Facebook should be banned raises complex issues that warrant careful consideration. While it has undoubtedly brought positive aspects to our lives, it also comes with concerns regarding privacy, mental health, and the spread of misinformation. By advocating for stricter regulations, improved transparency, and responsible digital citizenship, we can work towards a safer, more ethical social media landscape. Let us engage in thoughtful discussions and demand the changes necessary to ensure that Facebook, and other platforms like it, serve the best interests of their users and society as a whole.

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

Publications

• Analysis & Opinions
• News & Announcements
• Newsletters
• Policy Briefs & Testimonies
• Presentations & Speeches
• Reports & Papers
• Quarterly Journal: International Security
• Artificial Intelligence
• Conflict & Conflict Resolution
• Coronavirus
• Economics & Global Affairs
• Environment & Climate Change
• International Relations
• International Security & Defense
• Nuclear Issues
• Science & Technology
• Student Publications
• War in Ukraine
• Asia & the Pacific
• Middle East & North Africa
• North America
• South America
• Infographics & Charts

US-Russian Contention in Cyberspace

The overarching question imparting urgency to this exploration is: Can U.S.-Russian contention in cyberspace cause the two nuclear superpowers to stumble into war? In considering this question we were constantly reminded of recent comments by a prominent U.S. arms control expert: At least as dangerous as the risk of an actual cyberattack, he observed, is cyber operations’ “blurring of the line between peace and war.” Or, as Nye wrote, “in the cyber realm, the difference between a weapon and a non-weapon may come down to a single line of code, or simply the intent of a computer program’s user.”

The Geopolitics of Renewable Hydrogen

Renewables are widely perceived as an opportunity to shatter the hegemony of fossil fuel-rich states and democratize the energy landscape. Virtually all countries have access to some renewable energy resources (especially solar and wind power) and could thus substitute foreign supply with local resources. Our research shows, however, that the role countries are likely to assume in decarbonized energy systems will be based not only on their resource endowment but also on their policy choices.

What Comes After the Forever Wars

As the United States emerges from the era of so-called forever wars, it should abandon the regime change business for good. Then, Washington must understand why it failed, writes Stephen Walt.

Telling Black Stories: What We All Can Do

Full event video and after-event thoughts from the panelists.

• Defense, Emerging Technology, and Strategy
• Diplomacy and International Politics
• Environment and Natural Resources
• International Security
• Science, Technology, and Public Policy
• Africa Futures Project
• Applied History Project
• Arctic Initiative
• Asia-Pacific Initiative
• Cyber Project
• Defending Digital Democracy
• Defense Project
• Economic Diplomacy Initiative
• Future of Diplomacy Project
• Geopolitics of Energy Project
• Harvard Project on Climate Agreements
• Homeland Security Project
• Intelligence Project
• Korea Project
• Managing the Atom
• Middle East Initiative
• Project on Europe and the Transatlantic Relationship
• Security and Global Health
• Technology and Public Purpose
• US-Russia Initiative to Prevent Nuclear Terrorism

Special Initiatives

• American Secretaries of State
• An Economic View of the Environment  
• Cuban Missile Crisis  
• Russia Matters
• Thucydides's Trap

AP Photo/Michael Dwyer, File

The TikTok logo is seen on a cell phone on Oct. 14, 2022, in Boston. Congress is currently debating bills that would ban TikTok in the United States, reflecting growing worries from authorities over the Chinese-owned video sharing app.

Analysis & Opinions - Foreign Policy

• Bruce Schneier
• Barath Raghavan

The ban would hurt Americans—and there are better ways to protect their data.

Congress is currently debating bills that would ban TikTok in the United States. We are here as technologists to tell you that this is a terrible idea and the side effects would be intolerable. Details matter. There are several ways Congress might ban TikTok, each with different efficacies and side effects. In the end, all the effective ones would destroy the free internet as we know it.

There’s no doubt that TikTok and ByteDance, the company that owns it, are shady. They, like most large corporations in China, operate at the pleasure of the Chinese government. They collect extreme levels of information about users. But they’re not alone: Many apps you use do the same, including Facebook and Instagram, along with seemingly innocuous apps that have no need for the data. Your data is bought and sold by data brokers you’ve never heard of who have few scruples about where the data ends up. They have digital dossiers on most people in the United States.

If we want to address the real problem, we need to enact serious privacy laws, not security theater, to stop our data from being collected, analyzed, and sold—by anyone. Such laws would protect us in the long term, and not just from the app of the week. They would also prevent data breaches and ransomware attacks from spilling our data out into the digital underworld, including hacker message boards and chat servers, hostile state actors, and outside hacker groups. And, most importantly, they would be compatible with our bedrock values of free speech and commerce, which Congress’s current strategies are not.

Want to Read More?

The authors.

• Adjunct Lecturer in Public Policy, Harvard Kennedy School
• Fellow, Cyber Project
• Cyber Security
• Information technology
• Bio/Profile
• Media Inquiries
• More by this author

Recommended

In the spotlight, most viewed.

Analysis & Opinions - Lawfare

Building a Cyber Insurance Backstop Is Harder Than It Sounds

• Josephine Wolff

Analysis & Opinions - cyberscoop

CFPB’s Proposed Data Rules Would Improve Security, Privacy and Competition

Analysis & Opinions - WIRED

AI Needs to Be Both Trusted and Trustworthy

The Aftermath of the Baltimore Bridge Collapse

• Juliette Kayyem

What Does Ukraine Need from NATO?

• Karen Donfired
• Ivo Daadler

Barham A. Salih Joins Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs and Middle East Initiative at Harvard Kennedy School as Senior Fellow

• Barham Salih

Press Release - Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, Harvard Kennedy School

Analysis & Opinions - Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, Harvard Kennedy School

NATO’s Concept for Deterrence and Defence of the Euro-Atlantic Area (DDA)

• Stephen R. Covington

Paper - Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, Harvard Kennedy School

Artificial Intelligence and National Security

• Taniel Chan

Belfer Center Email Updates

Belfer center of science and international affairs.

79 John F. Kennedy Street, Cambridge, MA 02138 (617) 495-1400

Home — Essay Samples — Social Issues — Freedom of Speech — Books Should Not Be Banned

Books Should not Be Banned

• Categories: Censorship Freedom of Speech

About this sample

Words: 793 |

Published: Mar 16, 2024

Words: 793 | Pages: 2 | 4 min read

Table of contents

The freedom to read and access information is a fundamental right that should be protected and upheld in any democratic society, censorship undermines critical thinking, limiting access to valuable and diverse knowledge, inhibiting the development of empathy and understanding.

Cite this Essay

Let us write you an essay from scratch

• 450+ experts on 30 subjects ready to help
• Custom essay delivered in as few as 3 hours

Get high-quality help

Prof. Kifaru

Verified writer

• Expert in: Social Issues

+ 120 experts online

By clicking “Check Writers’ Offers”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy . We’ll occasionally send you promo and account related email

No need to pay just yet!

Related Essays

2 pages / 1064 words

2 pages / 953 words

2 pages / 849 words

2 pages / 1011 words

Remember! This is just a sample.

You can get your custom paper by one of our expert writers.

121 writers online

Still can’t find what you need?

Browse our vast selection of original essay samples, each expertly formatted and styled

Related Essays on Freedom of Speech

Freedom of speech is a foundational pillar of democratic societies and a fundamental human right. It serves as the bedrock of open and inclusive societies, allowing individuals to express their thoughts, opinions, and ideas [...]

The Turner v Driver case has been an important and highly controversial legal battle that has sparked heated debates regarding freedom of speech, privacy rights, and the responsibilities of social media platforms. This case [...]

In recent years, social media has become an integral part of our daily lives, with billions of users globally. It serves as a platform for people to connect with friends and family, share information, and engage in discussions. [...]

Eric Foner, a prominent historian and author, explores the concept of American freedom in his book, "The Story of American Freedom." In this work, Foner delves into the complexities of freedom in America, examining its evolution [...]

In music, censorship can be defined as ‘the suppression or prohibition’, of any parts of music ‘that are considered obscene or politically unacceptable’ (Oxford University Press, 2019). This includes the editing of musical and [...]

The First Amendment of the United States Constitution gives us the right to freedom of speech and freedom of press. In my opinion, these rights have been abused in such a manner that the freedom of press has been pushed beyond [...]

Related Topics

By clicking “Send”, you agree to our Terms of service and Privacy statement . We will occasionally send you account related emails.

Where do you want us to send this sample?

By clicking “Continue”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy.

Be careful. This essay is not unique

This essay was donated by a student and is likely to have been used and submitted before

Download this Sample

Free samples may contain mistakes and not unique parts

Sorry, we could not paraphrase this essay. Our professional writers can rewrite it and get you a unique paper.

Please check your inbox.

We can write you a custom essay that will follow your exact instructions and meet the deadlines. Let's fix your grades together!

Get Your Personalized Essay in 3 Hours or Less!

We use cookies to personalyze your web-site experience. By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy .

• Instructions Followed To The Letter
• Deadlines Met At Every Stage
• Unique And Plagiarism Free

We've detected unusual activity from your computer network

To continue, please click the box below to let us know you're not a robot.

Why did this happen?

Please make sure your browser supports JavaScript and cookies and that you are not blocking them from loading. For more information you can review our Terms of Service and Cookie Policy .

For inquiries related to this message please contact our support team and provide the reference ID below.

Mobile Menu Overlay

The White House 1600 Pennsylvania Ave NW Washington, DC 20500

A Proclamation on Transgender Day of Visibility,   2024

On Transgender Day of Visibility, we honor the extraordinary courage and contributions of transgender Americans and reaffirm our Nation’s commitment to forming a more perfect Union — where all people are created equal and treated equally throughout their lives.  

I am proud that my Administration has stood for justice from the start, working to ensure that the LGBTQI+ community can live openly, in safety, with dignity and respect.  I am proud to have appointed transgender leaders to my Administration and to have ended the ban on transgender Americans serving openly in our military.  I am proud to have signed historic Executive Orders that strengthen civil rights protections in housing, employment, health care, education, the justice system, and more.  I am proud to have signed the Respect for Marriage Act into law, ensuring that every American can marry the person they love. 

Transgender Americans are part of the fabric of our Nation.  Whether serving their communities or in the military, raising families or running businesses, they help America thrive.  They deserve, and are entitled to, the same rights and freedoms as every other American, including the most fundamental freedom to be their true selves.  But extremists are proposing hundreds of hateful laws that target and terrify transgender kids and their families — silencing teachers; banning books; and even threatening parents, doctors, and nurses with prison for helping parents get care for their children.  These bills attack our most basic American values:  the freedom to be yourself, the freedom to make your own health care decisions, and even the right to raise your own child.  It is no surprise that the bullying and discrimination that transgender Americans face is worsening our Nation’s mental health crisis, leading half of transgender youth to consider suicide in the past year.  At the same time, an epidemic of violence against transgender women and girls, especially women and girls of color, continues to take too many lives.  Let me be clear:  All of these attacks are un-American and must end.  No one should have to be brave just to be themselves.  

At the same time, my Administration is working to stop the bullying and harassment of transgender children and their families.  The Department of Justice has taken action to push back against extreme and un-American State laws targeting transgender youth and their families and the Department of Justice is partnering with law enforcement and community groups to combat hate and violence.  My Administration is also providing dedicated emergency mental health support through our nationwide suicide and crisis lifeline — any LGBTQI+ young person in need can call “988” and press “3” to speak with a counselor trained to support them.  We are making public services more accessible for transgender Americans, including with more inclusive passports and easier access to Social Security benefits.  There is much more to do.  I continue to call on the Congress to pass the Equality Act, to codify civil rights protections for all LGBTQI+ Americans.

Today, we send a message to all transgender Americans:  You are loved.  You are heard.  You are understood.  You belong.  You are America, and my entire Administration and I have your back.

NOW, THEREFORE, I, JOSEPH R. BIDEN JR., President of the United States of America, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution and the laws of the United States, do hereby proclaim March 31, 2024, as Transgender Day of Visibility.  I call upon all Americans to join us in lifting up the lives and voices of transgender people throughout our Nation and to work toward eliminating violence and discrimination based on gender identity.

     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this twenty-ninth day of March, in the year of our Lord two thousand twenty-four, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and forty-eighth.

                             JOSEPH R. BIDEN JR.

Stay Connected

We'll be in touch with the latest information on how President Biden and his administration are working for the American people, as well as ways you can get involved and help our country build back better.

Opt in to send and receive text messages from President Biden.

• Share full article

Advertisement

Supported by

Guest Essay

The D.E.A. Needs to Stay Out of Medicine

By Shravani Durbhakula

Dr. Durbhakula is an anesthesiologist and pain medicine physician from Nashville.

Even when her pancreatic cancer began to invade her spine in the summer of 2021, my mother-in-law maintained an image of grace, never letting her pain stop her from prioritizing the needs of others. Her appointment for a nerve block was a month away, but her pain medications enabled her to continue serving her community through her church. Until they didn’t.

Her medical condition quickly deteriorated, and her pain rapidly progressed. No one questioned that she needed opioid medications to live with dignity. But hydrocodone and then oxycodone became short at her usual pharmacy and then at two other pharmacies. My mother-in-law’s 30-day prescriptions were filled with only enough medication to last a few days, and her care team required in-person visits for new scripts. Despite being riddled with painful tumors, she endured a tortuous cycle of uncertainty and travel, stressing her already immunocompromised body to secure her medications.

My mother-in-law’s anguish before she died in July 2022 mirrors the broader struggle of countless individuals grappling with pain. I’m still haunted by the fact that my husband and I, both anesthesiologists and pain physicians who have made it our life’s work to alleviate the suffering of those in pain, could not help her. It is no wonder that our patients are frustrated. They do not understand why we, doctors whom they trust, send them on wild goose chases. They do not understand how pharmacies fail to provide the medications they need to function. They do not understand why the system makes them feel like drug seekers.

Health care professionals and pharmacies in this country are chained by the Drug Enforcement Administration. Our patients’ stress is the result not of an orchestrated set of practice guidelines or a comprehensive clinical policy but rather of one government agency’s crude, broad-stroke technique to mitigate a public health crisis through manufacturing limits — the gradual and repeated rationing of how much opioids can be produced by legitimate entities. This is a bad and ineffective strategy for solving the opioid crisis, and it’s incumbent on us to hand the reins of authority over to public health institutions better suited to the task.

Since 2015, the D.E.A. has decreased manufacturing quotas for oxycodone by more than 60 percent and for hydrocodone by about 72 percent. Despite thousands of public comments from concerned stakeholders, the agency has finalized even more reductions throughout 2024 for these drugs and other commonly prescribed prescription opioids .

In theory, fewer opioids sold means fewer inappropriate scripts filled, which should curb the diversion of prescription opioids for illicit purposes and decrease overdose deaths — right?

I can tell you from the front lines that that’s not quite right. Prescription opioids once drove the opioid crisis. But in recent years opioid prescriptions have significantly fallen, while overdose deaths have been at a record high. America’s new wave of fatalities is largely a result of the illicit market, specifically illicit fentanyl . And as production cuts contribute to the reduction of the already strained supply of legal, regulated prescription opioids, drug shortages stand to affect the more than 50 million people suffering from chronic pain in more ways than at the pharmacy counter.

Doctors may be forced to ration medications or choose which patients out of a qualifying group receive scripts, and drug prices may increase for consumers. In an aging population with increasing pain medication needs, more patients may struggle more frequently to fill prescriptions that treat their pain, and because of known treatment biases in pain medicine, women and people of color could be disproportionately affected, widening existing disparities .

Paradoxically, the D.E.A.’s production cuts may drive patients to seek opioids on the illicit market, where access is easy but drugs are laced unpredictably with fentanyl, xylazine and other deadly synthetics. My patients confide that they cannot go through cycles of pain relief and withdrawal and cannot spend hours in the emergency room; in their minds, they have no choice but to turn to the streets.

We’ve seen this play out before: When the D.E.A. made legal access to products containing hydrocodone more difficult in 2014, the sale of opioids through online illicit markets increased to 13.7 percent of all drug sales from an estimated 6.7 percent, and sales shifted toward more potent opioids like fentanyl.

The D.E.A. isn’t new to this criticism. As recently as January, it insisted that manufacturing issues or other supply-chain disruptions were the real issues limiting patient access to pain medication, not manufacturing quotas or the imposition of limits. And the agency suggested that action would be taken if the Food and Drug Administration told it about shortages, which the F.D.A. hasn’t so far. But when more than a third of health care professionals attest that their patients struggle to fill opioid scripts, something is clearly not working. The D.E.A.’s responses read more like a deflection of blame than a serious strategy.

My profession makes me acutely aware of opioid risks, including addiction and overdose, but at times and under careful dosing and monitoring, opioids are the right choice for our patients. Still, some health care providers are reluctant to prescribe them , even for cancer pain, for which opioids are a mainstay of treatment. Many cited opioid dispensing at pharmacies as a barrier.

This is concerning, since untreated pain is associated with decreased immunity , a worsening of depression , reduced mobility and adverse effects on quality of life . Ineffective pain management has also been associated with increased medical costs. Among people with sickle cell disease , for instance, 10 percent of patients account for 50 percent of emergency room visits. Although they suffer from other possibly contributing disorders, the common feature among them is chronic pain.

Dangerous prescription drugs require safeguards, but a scalpel has more promise than a sledgehammer. The D.E.A., an agency staffed with law enforcement officials, is not equipped to distinguish appropriate from inappropriate prescribing, and it has apparently confused inappropriate with criminal . Instead of defining medical aptness, the D.E.A. should pass the baton to our nation’s public health agencies.

Collaboratively, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the Food and Drug Administration and the Department of Health and Human Services can take a tailored, more precise approach to opioids that is informed by medical and clinical acumen. The F.D.A., in particular, should strengthen existing risk evaluation and mitigation strategies programs, which place controls on individual medications and respond to signs of inappropriate prescribing. Although such programs have not always responded effectively , they can be improved with planning, time and resources. And lastly, the government should strip the D.E.A. of its authority to suspend providers’ controlled substance licenses when dangers arise and should hand that power over to these public health agencies.

As the rates of chronic pain rise, I fear the future. Our medical students report reservations about treating pain patients, and while a dedicated medical school pain curriculum can shift attitudes, few schools offer one. The number of unfilled pain medicine fellowship training positions has more than doubled in the past three years , and pain physicians are leaving the specialty . For the field to recover, the thoughtful consideration of clinicians must be empowered by our nation’s health entities. It is time for the D.E.A. to stop meddling in medicine.

Shravani Durbhakula is an anesthesiologist and pain medicine physician. She serves on the board of directors of the American Academy of Pain Medicine Foundation and is a former director of the pain medicine fellowship and of the medical school pain course at Johns Hopkins School of Medicine.

The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We’d like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips . And here’s our email: [email protected] .

Follow the New York Times Opinion section on Facebook , Instagram , TikTok , WhatsApp , X and Threads .