4 ms·

Sadly, social media is the new smoking. I encourage everyone to read "the book of why" by Judea Pearl. It illustrates how "research" and "studies" were used to

Sadly, social media is the new smoking. I encourage everyone to read "the book of why" by Judea Pearl. It illustrates how "research" and "studies" were used to sew doubt about the dangers of smoking. That's where we're at with social media, BUT, we have new tools like causal inference that should decrease the length of time we deal with "no link found here" or "correlation is not causation" bs.

Siira 5y ago
Still, we do not know if these studies were manipulated by the industry or how much. We have no evidence except them. Cynicism is not a substitute for actual evidence.
- forrestgumbc 5y ago
  I agree — if you think there were faults in the methodology: fair, point them out. But to cast doubt on a paper simply because "we don't know how these were manipulated" is a lazy effort to disregard conclusions that don't fall on preconceived notions.
CaptArmchair 5y ago
As far as this particular study goes: Unlike the industry funded research you implicitly refer to (tobacco, fossil fuel,...), this study was done by a department of the University of Oxford, which is publicly funded. The title from actual press release / news item from their website reads this: > Study suggests little to no increase over time in association between adolescents’ technology engagement and mental health problems, urges more transparent collaborations between academia and industry The second part wasn't mentioned in the BBC article and pretty much addresses your concern. From the press release: > To enable a robust study of life in the digital age, the authors suggested an urgent need for more credible and transparent collaborations between technology companies and independent scientists. > “We need more transparent and credible collaborations between scientists and technology companies to unlock the answers. The data exists within the tech industry, scientists just need to be able to access it for neutral and independent investigation.” https://www.oii.ox.ac.uk/news/releases/study-suggests-little-to-no-increase-over-time-in-association-between-adolescents-technology-engagement-and-mental-health-problems-urges-more-transparent-collaborations-between-academia-and/ https://www.oii.ox.ac.uk/news/releases/study-suggests-little...
- robertlagrant 5y ago
  The study was partially funded by public money through the Economic and Social Research Council, and partly through a foundation called The Huo Family Foundation, which I do not believe is publicly funded.
grphtrdr 5y ago
I would just add that the content of The Book of Why is amazing but damn is the audio book bad. It might be the worst read book I can think of. I am not even sure why, it just so painful to get through with the way the voice actor speaks. Hopefully it gets a new rendition at some point in the future.
- anotha1 5y ago
  Huh, I didn't know that, but I highly recommend the hard cover!

Siira 5y ago

Still, we do not know if these studies were manipulated by the industry or how much. We have no evidence except them. Cynicism is not a substitute for actual evidence.

forrestgumbc 5y ago
I agree — if you think there were faults in the methodology: fair, point them out. But to cast doubt on a paper simply because "we don't know how these were manipulated" is a lazy effort to disregard conclusions that don't fall on preconceived notions.

CaptArmchair 5y ago

As far as this particular study goes: Unlike the industry funded research you implicitly refer to (tobacco, fossil fuel,...), this study was done by a department of the University of Oxford, which is publicly funded. The title from actual press release / news item from their website reads this: > Study suggests little to no increase over time in association between adolescents’ technology engagement and mental health problems, urges more transparent collaborations between academia and industry The second part wasn't mentioned in the BBC article and pretty much addresses your concern. From the press release: > To enable a robust study of life in the digital age, the authors suggested an urgent need for more credible and transparent collaborations between technology companies and independent scientists. > “We need more transparent and credible collaborations between scientists and technology companies to unlock the answers. The data exists within the tech industry, scientists just need to be able to access it for neutral and independent investigation.” https://www.oii.ox.ac.uk/news/releases/study-suggests-little-to-no-increase-over-time-in-association-between-adolescents-technology-engagement-and-mental-health-problems-urges-more-transparent-collaborations-between-academia-and/ https://www.oii.ox.ac.uk/news/releases/study-suggests-little...

robertlagrant 5y ago
The study was partially funded by public money through the Economic and Social Research Council, and partly through a foundation called The Huo Family Foundation, which I do not believe is publicly funded.

grphtrdr 5y ago

I would just add that the content of The Book of Why is amazing but damn is the audio book bad. It might be the worst read book I can think of. I am not even sure why, it just so painful to get through with the way the voice actor speaks. Hopefully it gets a new rendition at some point in the future.

anotha1 5y ago
Huh, I didn't know that, but I highly recommend the hard cover!