ZH version is available. Content is displayed in original English for accuracy.
Advertisement
Advertisement
⚡ Community Insights
Discussion Sentiment
59% Positive
Analyzed from 2688 words in the discussion.
Trending Topics
#social#media#don#https#evidence#youth#article#kids#young#need
Discussion (67 Comments)Read Original on HackerNews
[1] https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/developmental-psycholog...
ML has an equity interest in Ksana Health Inc. No Ksana Health services or products were used in the current project. SS serves on the scientific advisory board for Headspace, for which he receives compensation. He has received consulting fees from Boehringer Ingelheim and Otsuka Pharmaceuticals. CO serves on the Youth and Families Advisory Committee for YouTube.
I agree that this could be a conflict worth noting but I don't know the structure of that board to say how big. The link to the board is here [1] and implies independence and doesn't mention that youtube does or doesn't give funding/other support. (at least I didn't see any)
Always good to look into potential conflicts of interest though.
[1] https://www.youtube.com/howyoutubeworks/kids-and-teens/advis...
Too much social media in young years?
This lady says you should let your children get hooked on YouTube, who knows what could happen if you don't!
Looks like biased research, fake coverage amplifies it, it's all manufacturing consent.
I've also never tested my ability to survive a 100ft fall. Maybe I can! We have no way of knowing!
> Virtually all schools in the United States report that they use social media for communications, including for key announcements such as making families aware of upcoming opportunities, educational programming, and key deadlines. The reliance on social media for communication and resource sharing, while banning youth from these same platforms, sends mixed messages to young people and limits their access to health promoting information and resources.
That's a good point. There's no other way that schools could communicate such things. My childhood in the 80s and 90s certainly didn't include Scouts, 4-H, Band, Drama, Cross-Country, etc! I'm sure with social media bans for youth, schools will just continue to use social media to try to communicate to kids rather than adapting.
I have to assume the authors of this paper know how dumb it is and just don't care since most people will only read the headline.
Email lists work great for the type of comms schools need to make. And/or an RSS feed on the schools homepage.
Really grasping the straws with this argument...
And there won't be, because the safest, cheapest, and most easily implemented solution is a moderated Kindernet they can't monetize and won't have access to.
So every conversation becomes a list of corner cases that look bizarre from a parenting point of view because these platforms are in no way essential. The answer to your quote is that the schools and clubs that aren't also handing out flyers would hand out flyers again. There's no scenario where scanning my preteen improves this process.
We have lots of rules that just arnt being enforced. instead, we do think that won't make a dent and are draconian dystopian surveillance state because we refuse to curtail the grift economy.
An invasion of privacy is similarly a particularly vapid argument. Youth are not being invited to participate in social media once it is banned, there is no reach into their private realm and where face age estimation is being used that is data which is being provided willingly and with an understanding of its intended purpose. That in and of itself is not an invasion of privacy.
I will be quite surprised if these claims every make it past peer review and withstand scrutiny by the other social scientists who recommended social media onboarding delays.
"Not a single social media restriction experiment has included people under the age of 16. We do not know how social media bans will affect the young people being targeted by them because we have never tested this with them!"
I know anecdotally my own experience restricting social media has been more of a positive association, but that is because I am not attracted to it anymore. I have been on it for several years and it is no longer novel. To a teenager, it may be the way they relate to their peers and being unable to have access to it could have a negative consequence.
Maybe with all these countries and states that have banned social media, we should see evidence of increased mental health wellness as a proof that banning it was the right thing to do.
Concerns about age gating etc are true but as we’re already experiencing that nonsense without social media bans it’s kind of a moot point.
EDIT: See e.g. https://www.nationalacademies.org/read/27396/chapter/6#93, and if you think this is what constitutes "clear evidence", well, you have some very questionable epistemological standards.
EDIT2: Also, limit yourself to proper longitudinal studies and then look at the actual effect sizes reported. You will find, yes, there is broad evidence that social media is likely slightly more harmful to adolescents than beneficial / not harmful, but the actual effect size is so tiny broad interventions are unlikely to have practical consequences. I.e. the most plausible explanation is that the vast majority people are not meaningfully affected, and small subgroups benefit and/or are negatively affected.
It is the usual pseudoscientific / social science attempts to launder "statistical significance" (which you get trivially with enough samples) into practical significance, in order to justify sweeping societal changes.
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/eclinm/article/PIIS2589-5...
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamapsychiatry/fullarticle/...
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle...
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamapediatrics/fullarticle/...
Can you please explain how I'm wrong?
Even the longitudinal studies are poor here. See, for example, as this Nature article notes:
I'd also suggest looking at the coefficients (effect sizes) in the above (standardized regression coefficients barely approaching 0.2 - and this is one of the stronger findings), and other articles. The effects here, even if we were to pretend they were clearly established, are incredibly tiny. Examples:- social media explaining only 0.4% of variance (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30944443/)
- social-media/mental-health effect around β = .061 (https://christopherjferguson.com/Social%20Media%20Meta.pdf)
These are basically nothing, and yet you have such absolute confidence from people that social media is this big harmful thing. The evidence just isn't there.
But phronesis is a thing. It's obviously bad.
My one caveat - the current excuse we have for a UK government are likely to try and use the ban as a reason to force through digital IDs.
Chemically addictive drugs that directly alter wanting could be argued to require use of force to prevent people from being coerced. But screens have no such justification for using force against people who look at screens. It is use of force in a situation without any coercion. And that's unethical.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blind_men_and_an_elephant You are right that the children I see around my region aren't like you describe. I don't eat out. But I am often outside biking around and see people outside (kids included) biking around. My siblings and friends' kids read books in addition to being technically competent with desktop (or at least laptop) computers. I'm not sure which of us is seeing the smaller part of the elephant but to me the kids seem alright.
No shit sherlock, it lacks evidence because Facebook gatekeeps all the scientifically interesting data and they also don't share their findings from internal studies and human trials where they psychologically manipulatated minors.
There is a reason social media apps spam you with notification popups if you have not been active for the last 23 hours. They employ every trick in the book to keep you hooked and monetize your attention.
It is clear scientific misconduct by people working for Facebook who do numerous human trials on minors in order to increase their metrics and monetization. The fact they have crossed this red line should stop the discussion for every credible researcher in that field, because human trials on minors without consent are not ethical and there is no excuse for such behavior.
So maybe banning asbestos altogether is overkill.
I'd love to be proven wrong. I don't have any financial interest in asbestos besides the few jobs I've done over the years removing it.
Your example thus kind of shows the opposite: dangerous things can be made safe, with a solid understanding of their risks and techniques that are proven to make them safe. We have neither the former nor the the latter for social media.
my partner and i have reasonably good jobs, but we work 12-14hrs. we make mortgage and have some extra money. we are currently debating whether or not it is financially, morally, or ethically responsible to bring a child into this world and be able to provide them with the attention that they need and deserve.
For social media it is a whole different problem from it being entangled with protected speech. We don't want 'arrested for spreading misinformation defined as anything which contradicts the offical line' to be a thing.
To my mind greed and will to monopolize resources by virtual scarcity is what create a cartel.
Prohibition might help such a scenario, yes. but gouvernement don't need to regulate with extrem policies like prohibition which indeed often prove counterproductive. Permitting legal sell under certain quality control, honest information and education on known outcomes, regulation on who can produce, sell, buy and use in which proportions.