23 ms·

I have a personal grudge against anyone saying "Why don't the parents take some responsibility to combat a multi-billion dollar company who puts the resources o

I have a personal grudge against anyone saying "Why don't the parents take some responsibility to combat a multi-billion dollar company who puts the resources of small countries in to making their children behave in detrimental ways." But I'll not get in to that. :) Facebook and Instagram are drug dealers. Sure, they're not physically distributing a substance, but the social interactions they provide are every bit as addictive. In time, society will abolish or tightly constrain them in the same way society has banned other highly addictive substances. And this is why I don't blame the users.

aspaviento 5y ago
> I have a personal grudge against anyone saying (...) There is no need to have any grudge against me (I hope). I get it. I never said being a parent is an easy job. I acknowledge how hard it is but... > Facebook and Instagram are drug dealers If you teach your kids not to consume drugs, why Instagram should be any different?
- wussboy 5y ago
  Sorry, I agree my grudge comment came off hard. No offence I hope?
  - aspaviento 5y ago
    No offence, I understood from where you came.
- afavour 5y ago
  > If you teach your kids not to consume drugs, why Instagram should be any different? Imagine if all the other kids at school used drugs on a daily basis, that there was advertising plastered everywhere telling you that drugs are cool, that successful people use drugs and that your worth in this world can be directly tied to successful use of drugs. I don't mean to sound mean here, but are you a parent? If not I suspect you're not really aware of the realities of parenting, particularly once a child becomes teenage. You can only do so much. And you certainly can't win against a multi-billion dollar enterprise determined to make your rebellion-inclined teenager do something.
  - aspaviento 5y ago
    I don't want to use myself as an example because it's just my experience but when I was young people around me smoked, many of my teachers smoked and in TV and movies smoking was still accepted as something approved by society. But I was taught not to do it and never did it. With this I just want to say that I know it's a difficult task but presenting it as a lost battle/impossible seems to me wrong.
    - OvidNaso 5y ago
      Do you really think all those people aroubd you eere taught to smoke?
    - naravara 5y ago
      > With this I just want to say that I know it's a difficult task but presenting it as a lost battle/impossible seems to me wrong. The thing is, we made headway in the battle against smoking by disallowing people from doing all those things. You're not allowed to market to kids, you're not allowed to depict smoking in most TV that kids are likely to watch, you're not allowed to smoke in or near schools and teachers who do are frowned upon. Cigarettes themselves are taxed heavily specifically to price young people out of getting into the habit, vendors are required to card, and the cigarette makers are even required to pay into a fund that promotes anti-smoking messaging. So yes it is definitely not an impossible task. But the things that make it possible require taking it seriously as a danger and addressing it collectively.
    - triceratops 5y ago
      > when I was young people around me smoked > But I was taught not to do it and never did it. So not all young people in your time were taught similarly. Or if they were, those teachings didn't stick. Ideally the number of minors smoking would be zero. I don't think that's a radical idea, and I hope it's something that everyone can agree on. "Teachings from parents" obviously didn't achieve that goal, from your own experience.
    - bumby 5y ago
      I know you probably intuit this based on your pre-emptive caveat about anecdotal evidence, but a quick online search seems to indicate that your experience may not be the norm. "Peers’ smoking is the strongest predictor of adolescent smoking."[1] [1] Gecková, A.M., Stewart, R., van Dijk, J.P., Orosová, O.G., Groothoff, J.W. and Post, D., 2005. Influence of socio-economic status, parents and peers on smoking behaviour of adolescents. European addiction research, 11(4), pp.204-209.
- throwaway2037 5y ago
  In some respects, "Say No to Drugs" seems out of date when some very advanced democracies have already legalised some drugs or are close to it. That said, I understand your sentiment. No parent should be encouraging their children to become habitual cocaine users! One thing that does some "obvious" for this generation of parents: Work hard to educate your children on the dangers of traditional cigarette smoking. That is a seriously terrible habit for your health and well-being. I feel much less so about vaping (e-cigarettes), as the health effects of nicotine addiction are still far lower than traditional cigarette smoke inhaled into the lungs.
  - short_sells_poo 5y ago
    > In some respects, "Say No to Drugs" seems out of date when some very advanced democracies have already legalised some drugs or are close to it. I think there's a certain nuance there. Drugs (which ones?) can (should?) be legal - or at least their consumption decriminalized. We've made good progress already and yet much more is to be made. But all this is not saying that drugs should be pushed hand over fist down people's throat and that billions should be spent on studying the ways people can be more encouraged to become drug users. And this is what Facebook et al are doing. They are spending untold resources on devising the most efficient ways of making people addicted and ensuring that no other way exist of satisfying the cravings. They create echo chambers and push specifically topics that get the most response out of people. And this is completely legal (currently). Facebook, Instagram, Tiktok etc... are allowed to be cool, hip, desirable and consumed in ways that the tobacco industry couldn't imagine in their wildest dreams during their heydays. These companies can tap into the deepest secrets and desires of vast swathes of people in ways that is unprecedented. I feel that the vices of the old world, like drugs, are chickenshit compared to the power that the new vices can wield over their captives.
    - Yizahi 5y ago
      Nicotine and alcohol drugs are already legal everywhere :) . We are just hypocrites, classifying them separately.
smithza 5y ago
I will say emphatically that parents of teens are the most influential people in their lives, whether acknowledged or no. It is likely the case that parents will forever be the most influential people in someone's life and the positions you take, the behaviors you engage in, and what you teach will stick with them for their whole lives. Take a stance and teach them. They may rebel, they may not, but years down the road your opinion will likely inform their reflections and help guide their future actions. getting off soapbox
- lotsofpulp 5y ago
  While parents may or may not be the “most” influential people in a child’s life, I think it is certainly possible that the influence of parents/family/tribe can decrease in relation to the influence of the broader world due to changes outside of the parents’ control. I certainly think the internet gave me access to many more humans, ideas, and tribes than my parents' generation had access to, and it would be hard for me to see how it would have been possible for my parents to have as much influence on me as their parents had on them. I would even say it is indisputable there are forces beyond parents’ control unless the parents opt to live an Amish lifestyle, such as using devices connected to the internet and various social networks. If you do not give it to your kid, someone at school will, and even more, you probably need to teach your kid how to play the game rather than have them start it blind while the other players have experience.
- pavel_lishin 5y ago
  There are different levels of influence, though. Yes, parents can assert a lot of control over their children, but at a certain age they start looking at their peers and being influenced by them to a tremendous degree. And not all parents realize, or can realize, everything that goes on in their childrens' lives.
- SamoyedFurFluff 5y ago
  Parental control cannot and can never be used as a singular or even more influential factor to societal level problems. Parents can have all the best intentions in the world but if the society they’re trying to raise children in is broken, they can’t protect those children forever.
hilbert42 5y ago
The term I've used for years is electronic heroin. It's apt methinks.
syshum 5y ago
>>In time, society will abolish or tightly constrain them in the same way society has banned other highly addictive substances. I hope not, the War on Drugs is one of the biggest disasters in modern history, directly linked to untold problems in society
- Sohcahtoa82 5y ago
  You've now got me picturing a guy holding tablets in a trench coat in a dark alley with asking some teenagers passing buy if they wanna buy some time on social media. "I got it all, buddy. Instagram, Snapchat, Facebook...I can hook you up."
bserge 5y ago
> And this is why I don't blame the users. Not even a little? Users aren't brainless, as much as they'd want to make you believe.
fsflover 5y ago
> Facebook and Instagram are drug dealers. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24579498 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24579498
skinnymuch 5y ago
What will be the crack and cocaine in this situation? What other untold horrors will unfold while privileged or naive citizens and politicians all around stay cozy whilst the war on drugs caused havoc and destroyed so many lives and communities. “We” certainly blamed the users of addictive substances and vilified or at least looked down on them. That is until it was heavily white and middle class or above people with opoids. Even then it was slow, but some things were done. Far more than what was done with other highly addictive substances. It’s a disgrace. I shutter to think any drug banning history happen in any other context.
atonalfreerider 5y ago
Ditto for online pornography. And unlike chemical drugs that have to be transported and administered, these images and videos fly through the wires into childrens' bedrooms. I know, because like most children, I was exposed to online porn at a young age and was addicted to it well into my adult life. These companies need regulation, because they are bad actors.
- Animats 5y ago
  Ditto for online pornography. Nah. That's been studied heavily. Here's an overview from the National Institutes of Health.[1] Wikipedia has an overview.[2] The overall conclusion is that most of the research is of terrible quality and there's no big measurable effect. [1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6352245/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6352245/ [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_pornography https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_pornography
  - atonalfreerider 5y ago
    Here is strong evidence to the contrary from the NIH: >The proposed DSM-5, slated to publish in May of 2014, contains in this new addition the diagnosis of Hypersexual Disorder, which includes problematic, compulsive pornography use. Bostwick and Bucci, in their report out of the Mayo Clinic on treating Internet pornography addiction with naltrexone, wrote “…cellular adaptations in the (pornography) addict’s PFC result in increased salience of drug-associated stimuli, decreased salience of non-drug stimuli, and decreased interest in pursuing goal-directed activities central to survival.” Source: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3050060/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3050060/
    - Animats 5y ago
      That's from one case, and it's worth reading.[1] [1] https://www.mayoclinicproceedings.org/article/S0025-6196(11)60846-X/fulltext https://www.mayoclinicproceedings.org/article/S0025-6196(11)...
  - passivate 5y ago
vineyardmike 5y ago
> the social interactions they provide are every bit as addictive. I'm not familiar with actual research in this space, but i would imagine that its similarly addictive to being with friends IRL? (To me) social media is a great tool to connect with friends and stay present even after we move away and work and pandemic quarantine. Its a suppliment for IRL relationships. I used to live with friends in college, and i used to go out and get food or drinks or whatever almost daily to get my "fix" of socialization. Are social networks really that different? I recognize that some (teen girl?) people might wish they looked like a supermodel on social media or get jealousy of the lives of influences, but is that different from old magazine and movie stars? Is the mixture of "social" and "influences" to one news feed detrimental? Is there more exposure? What makes social networking more "addictive" (and therefore dangerous) than actual socialization?
passivate 5y ago
Its true that social media is addictive, and also that companies intentionally design it to be so, but everyone bears some responsibility on that - from the companies, to the users, to the engineers working on it, to online authors referencing it/promoting it, etc, etc. So even if we argue about who gets what percentage of blame, it doesn't really change anything. We may convince 10-20 people in the comments section, but thats not really a solution. We need to contribute on a social media de-addiction guide or something.. :)

aspaviento 5y ago

> I have a personal grudge against anyone saying (...) There is no need to have any grudge against me (I hope). I get it. I never said being a parent is an easy job. I acknowledge how hard it is but... > Facebook and Instagram are drug dealers If you teach your kids not to consume drugs, why Instagram should be any different?

wussboy 5y ago
Sorry, I agree my grudge comment came off hard. No offence I hope?
- aspaviento 5y ago
  No offence, I understood from where you came.
afavour 5y ago
> If you teach your kids not to consume drugs, why Instagram should be any different? Imagine if all the other kids at school used drugs on a daily basis, that there was advertising plastered everywhere telling you that drugs are cool, that successful people use drugs and that your worth in this world can be directly tied to successful use of drugs. I don't mean to sound mean here, but are you a parent? If not I suspect you're not really aware of the realities of parenting, particularly once a child becomes teenage. You can only do so much. And you certainly can't win against a multi-billion dollar enterprise determined to make your rebellion-inclined teenager do something.
- aspaviento 5y ago
  I don't want to use myself as an example because it's just my experience but when I was young people around me smoked, many of my teachers smoked and in TV and movies smoking was still accepted as something approved by society. But I was taught not to do it and never did it. With this I just want to say that I know it's a difficult task but presenting it as a lost battle/impossible seems to me wrong.
  - OvidNaso 5y ago
    Do you really think all those people aroubd you eere taught to smoke?
  - naravara 5y ago
    > With this I just want to say that I know it's a difficult task but presenting it as a lost battle/impossible seems to me wrong. The thing is, we made headway in the battle against smoking by disallowing people from doing all those things. You're not allowed to market to kids, you're not allowed to depict smoking in most TV that kids are likely to watch, you're not allowed to smoke in or near schools and teachers who do are frowned upon. Cigarettes themselves are taxed heavily specifically to price young people out of getting into the habit, vendors are required to card, and the cigarette makers are even required to pay into a fund that promotes anti-smoking messaging. So yes it is definitely not an impossible task. But the things that make it possible require taking it seriously as a danger and addressing it collectively.
  - triceratops 5y ago
    > when I was young people around me smoked > But I was taught not to do it and never did it. So not all young people in your time were taught similarly. Or if they were, those teachings didn't stick. Ideally the number of minors smoking would be zero. I don't think that's a radical idea, and I hope it's something that everyone can agree on. "Teachings from parents" obviously didn't achieve that goal, from your own experience.
  - bumby 5y ago
    I know you probably intuit this based on your pre-emptive caveat about anecdotal evidence, but a quick online search seems to indicate that your experience may not be the norm. "Peers’ smoking is the strongest predictor of adolescent smoking."[1] [1] Gecková, A.M., Stewart, R., van Dijk, J.P., Orosová, O.G., Groothoff, J.W. and Post, D., 2005. Influence of socio-economic status, parents and peers on smoking behaviour of adolescents. European addiction research, 11(4), pp.204-209.
throwaway2037 5y ago
In some respects, "Say No to Drugs" seems out of date when some very advanced democracies have already legalised some drugs or are close to it. That said, I understand your sentiment. No parent should be encouraging their children to become habitual cocaine users! One thing that does some "obvious" for this generation of parents: Work hard to educate your children on the dangers of traditional cigarette smoking. That is a seriously terrible habit for your health and well-being. I feel much less so about vaping (e-cigarettes), as the health effects of nicotine addiction are still far lower than traditional cigarette smoke inhaled into the lungs.
- short_sells_poo 5y ago
  > In some respects, "Say No to Drugs" seems out of date when some very advanced democracies have already legalised some drugs or are close to it. I think there's a certain nuance there. Drugs (which ones?) can (should?) be legal - or at least their consumption decriminalized. We've made good progress already and yet much more is to be made. But all this is not saying that drugs should be pushed hand over fist down people's throat and that billions should be spent on studying the ways people can be more encouraged to become drug users. And this is what Facebook et al are doing. They are spending untold resources on devising the most efficient ways of making people addicted and ensuring that no other way exist of satisfying the cravings. They create echo chambers and push specifically topics that get the most response out of people. And this is completely legal (currently). Facebook, Instagram, Tiktok etc... are allowed to be cool, hip, desirable and consumed in ways that the tobacco industry couldn't imagine in their wildest dreams during their heydays. These companies can tap into the deepest secrets and desires of vast swathes of people in ways that is unprecedented. I feel that the vices of the old world, like drugs, are chickenshit compared to the power that the new vices can wield over their captives.
  - Yizahi 5y ago
    Nicotine and alcohol drugs are already legal everywhere :) . We are just hypocrites, classifying them separately.

smithza 5y ago

I will say emphatically that parents of teens are the most influential people in their lives, whether acknowledged or no. It is likely the case that parents will forever be the most influential people in someone's life and the positions you take, the behaviors you engage in, and what you teach will stick with them for their whole lives. Take a stance and teach them. They may rebel, they may not, but years down the road your opinion will likely inform their reflections and help guide their future actions. getting off soapbox

lotsofpulp 5y ago
While parents may or may not be the “most” influential people in a child’s life, I think it is certainly possible that the influence of parents/family/tribe can decrease in relation to the influence of the broader world due to changes outside of the parents’ control. I certainly think the internet gave me access to many more humans, ideas, and tribes than my parents' generation had access to, and it would be hard for me to see how it would have been possible for my parents to have as much influence on me as their parents had on them. I would even say it is indisputable there are forces beyond parents’ control unless the parents opt to live an Amish lifestyle, such as using devices connected to the internet and various social networks. If you do not give it to your kid, someone at school will, and even more, you probably need to teach your kid how to play the game rather than have them start it blind while the other players have experience.
pavel_lishin 5y ago
There are different levels of influence, though. Yes, parents can assert a lot of control over their children, but at a certain age they start looking at their peers and being influenced by them to a tremendous degree. And not all parents realize, or can realize, everything that goes on in their childrens' lives.
SamoyedFurFluff 5y ago
Parental control cannot and can never be used as a singular or even more influential factor to societal level problems. Parents can have all the best intentions in the world but if the society they’re trying to raise children in is broken, they can’t protect those children forever.

hilbert42 5y ago

The term I've used for years is electronic heroin. It's apt methinks.

syshum 5y ago

>>In time, society will abolish or tightly constrain them in the same way society has banned other highly addictive substances. I hope not, the War on Drugs is one of the biggest disasters in modern history, directly linked to untold problems in society

Sohcahtoa82 5y ago
You've now got me picturing a guy holding tablets in a trench coat in a dark alley with asking some teenagers passing buy if they wanna buy some time on social media. "I got it all, buddy. Instagram, Snapchat, Facebook...I can hook you up."

bserge 5y ago

> And this is why I don't blame the users. Not even a little? Users aren't brainless, as much as they'd want to make you believe.

fsflover 5y ago

> Facebook and Instagram are drug dealers. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24579498 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24579498

skinnymuch 5y ago

What will be the crack and cocaine in this situation? What other untold horrors will unfold while privileged or naive citizens and politicians all around stay cozy whilst the war on drugs caused havoc and destroyed so many lives and communities. “We” certainly blamed the users of addictive substances and vilified or at least looked down on them. That is until it was heavily white and middle class or above people with opoids. Even then it was slow, but some things were done. Far more than what was done with other highly addictive substances. It’s a disgrace. I shutter to think any drug banning history happen in any other context.

atonalfreerider 5y ago

Ditto for online pornography. And unlike chemical drugs that have to be transported and administered, these images and videos fly through the wires into childrens' bedrooms. I know, because like most children, I was exposed to online porn at a young age and was addicted to it well into my adult life. These companies need regulation, because they are bad actors.

Animats 5y ago
Ditto for online pornography. Nah. That's been studied heavily. Here's an overview from the National Institutes of Health.[1] Wikipedia has an overview.[2] The overall conclusion is that most of the research is of terrible quality and there's no big measurable effect. [1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6352245/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6352245/ [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_pornography https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_pornography
- atonalfreerider 5y ago
  Here is strong evidence to the contrary from the NIH: >The proposed DSM-5, slated to publish in May of 2014, contains in this new addition the diagnosis of Hypersexual Disorder, which includes problematic, compulsive pornography use. Bostwick and Bucci, in their report out of the Mayo Clinic on treating Internet pornography addiction with naltrexone, wrote “…cellular adaptations in the (pornography) addict’s PFC result in increased salience of drug-associated stimuli, decreased salience of non-drug stimuli, and decreased interest in pursuing goal-directed activities central to survival.” Source: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3050060/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3050060/
  - Animats 5y ago
    That's from one case, and it's worth reading.[1] [1] https://www.mayoclinicproceedings.org/article/S0025-6196(11)60846-X/fulltext https://www.mayoclinicproceedings.org/article/S0025-6196(11)...
- passivate 5y ago

vineyardmike 5y ago

> the social interactions they provide are every bit as addictive. I'm not familiar with actual research in this space, but i would imagine that its similarly addictive to being with friends IRL? (To me) social media is a great tool to connect with friends and stay present even after we move away and work and pandemic quarantine. Its a suppliment for IRL relationships. I used to live with friends in college, and i used to go out and get food or drinks or whatever almost daily to get my "fix" of socialization. Are social networks really that different? I recognize that some (teen girl?) people might wish they looked like a supermodel on social media or get jealousy of the lives of influences, but is that different from old magazine and movie stars? Is the mixture of "social" and "influences" to one news feed detrimental? Is there more exposure? What makes social networking more "addictive" (and therefore dangerous) than actual socialization?

passivate 5y ago

Its true that social media is addictive, and also that companies intentionally design it to be so, but everyone bears some responsibility on that - from the companies, to the users, to the engineers working on it, to online authors referencing it/promoting it, etc, etc. So even if we argue about who gets what percentage of blame, it doesn't really change anything. We may convince 10-20 people in the comments section, but thats not really a solution. We need to contribute on a social media de-addiction guide or something.. :)