6 ms·

> With video games, the online tech communities rallied against any legislation and wrote volumes about how kids were smart enough to manage themselves and not

> With video games, the online tech communities rallied against any legislation and wrote volumes about how kids were smart enough to manage themselves and not let violent video games influence their thinking. Because there is no evidence for this. In cases where there is, like in lootboxes, we see a push for legislation. We have enough evidence to at least build correlation between social media use and decline of mental health. This doesn't call for banning or legislating the business to oblivion, but for talks in the society. We need to talk about social media use, our representatives have to discuss measures with the scientific community and promote research so that they can legislate based on data. One thing is for certain, what we have now is unacceptable. What we will build in the future is up for debate and should be debated.

PragmaticPulp 5y ago
> We have enough evidence to at least build correlation between social media use and decline of mental health. Again, eerily similar to the violent video game panic in the 90s. The original congressional hearings on violence in video games followed record-high gun violence in 1993 ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1993_congressional_hearings_on_video_games#Moral_panic_around_gun_violence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1993_congressional_hearings_on... ). Politicians pushed a correlation between increasing popularity of violent video games and increasing gun homicides. It sounds dumb now, but video games were relatively new at the time. The correlation felt right to many, especially those who hadn't grown up with video games in their own lives. I see this social media debate following the same pattern where adults feel that social media is evil and assume evidence will eventually support their feelings. > Because there is no evidence for this. In cases where there is, like in lootboxes, we see a push for legislation. That's rewriting history. Decades ago, there was a huge push for legislation against violent video games long before lootboxes were a thing ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1993_congressional_hearings_on_video_games https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1993_congressional_hearings_on... ) Violent video games have been called out as recently as 2019 by president Trump ( https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/politics-news/trumps-video-game-attack-reignites-decades-old-violence-debate-1230504/ https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/politics-news/trumps-... ) Violent video games have been a political scapegoat for decades. The debate about social media is following in the same footsteps.
- TheTester 5y ago
  Studies have shown that there is a correlation between social media use and decline of mental health. (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4183915/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4183915/) Not only that but anyone that has used social media can say that to you, specially younger people. Meanwhile studies show there was no correlation between violence and videogames. And except for lag you can't really find a lot of people that will tell you videogames made them violent. (https://www.psychologicalscience.org/publications/observer/obsonline/video-game-mechanics-aggression.html https://www.psychologicalscience.org/publications/observer/o...)
- tjs8rj 5y ago
  You make a good point, how would we tell the difference though? If social media as it stands causes unreasonable harm to society, how would we know for sure? And how would we know we aren’t making the same mistakes made with demonizing video games?
- invalidname 5y ago
  There weren't studies back then. Just correlation. We have quite a few studies that show the damages of specific kinds of social media and specific practices by social media. Hell a genocide happened because Facebook fell asleep at the wheel. There are many ways to regulate social media: - Determine constraints and objective statistical goals the ranking algorithm must meet - Blocking and marking fake content etc. Facebook could choose to rank positivity higher but it does the opposite since it increases engagement.
  - wutbrodo 5y ago
    > We have quite a few studies that show the damages of specific kinds of social media and specific practices by social media. Hell a genocide happened because Facebook fell asleep at the wheel. Do we actually have these, or are you inferring we do from the general tone of the media conversation around this topic? I'm aware of some correlation studies, and think the topic bears keeping an eye on. Would you mind sharing one of the "quite a few" causal studies you're referring to? > Hell a genocide happened because Facebook fell asleep at the wheel. This is a non sequitur. Facebook didn't cause the genocide any more than Marconi caused the Rwandan genocide or AT&T caused Watergate. Widespread communications technologies and platforms are deeply fundamental to human interaction in the modern age; the only model that marks Facebook as at all causal of Rohingyan persecution requires giving them a nonsensical amount of undue credit for the human interaction that occurs across their platform. Eg, you'd have to make obviously absurd claims like that Facebook is responsible for legalizing gay marriage in the US (activists heavily use FB and other social media platforms to organize). To be clear, I think criticism of FB from the UN et al on the topic of Myanmar is warranted. The nature of the platform is such that the capability can be built out to direct and constrain the conversations that are had, and it's fair to say that Facebook needs to expand the manner in which it does so. But this contradicts your point: the salient difference is the ability to control communication so that it stops violence, which in your framing is a _positive_ of social media. (Note that I'm personally close to an unrestricted speech maximalist, but I'm taking your framing for granted in the above paragraphs)
daveguy 5y ago
I agree. Advertising + algorithms without regulation makes the internet a mathematical optimization for lootboxes. Advertising on the internet should be strongly regulated just like it was on television at one point. I remember when subliminal advertising was a huge scandal / scare. It was regulated on TV. There is absolutely no regulation of it on the internet, and the technology and understanding of reinforcement learning in advertising has grown tremendously since then.
mellavora 5y ago
Um, there actually is a fair amount of evidence that violent video games influence people's thinking. Just as a quick gut-check, ask yourself this: if they didn't change your thinking, why would you play them? Assuming they don't offer any level of excitement or entertainment, what is the point? Evidence: the US army uses FPS to train people for combat, and there is a longer history of what it takes to train people to shoot people: switching from round targets to human-shaped targets makes it a lot easier for soldiers to aim the gun at a person before pulling the trigger. Now clearly most people who play violent video games don't turn into mass killers, but to say that the deep immersion of a FPS doesn't change your thinking is farcical on the face of it.
- bildung 5y ago
  > Um, there actually is a fair amount of evidence that violent video games influence people's thinking. Then feel free to post the research. This was the core topic of my studies, and to my knowledge there simply is zero evidence of a causal relationship. The US indeed has a big violence problem, but there are actual, established causes, e.g. the high wealth inequality, which is a big predictor for violent crimes in most countries.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- spywaregorilla 5y ago
  Why would you assume video games don't offer entertainment?
FDSGSG 5y ago
What do you think of the connection between video games and unemployment? https://www.economist.com/the-economist-explains/2017/03/30/the-link-between-video-games-and-unemployment https://www.economist.com/the-economist-explains/2017/03/30/...
- christophilus 5y ago
  Sounds like a causation / correlation mistake. Unemployed people find a way to spend their free time. Sounds to me like games are one of the most engaging escapes from the misery of unemployment.
  - harpersealtako 5y ago
    I tend to agree with this, but I've started to wonder if that's really true. Is there any way to actually test whether correlation != causation for the link between video games and unemployment? Like, an interventional study of some kind for example.
    - FDSGSG 5y ago
      This is even more interesting in societies where there's little pressure to work, such as nordic welfare states. A lot of men I went to school with in Scandinavia decided they'd rather stay at home and play videogames than find a job.
- gchamonlive 5y ago
  I think this fits Marcuse's One-Dimensional Man, not a problem with gaming itself.
spywaregorilla 5y ago
There is some evidence, however, that violent media tends to cause people to perceive their surroundings as more dangerous. Certainly not as bad as making people psychos, but worth a second of contemplation.

PragmaticPulp 5y ago

> We have enough evidence to at least build correlation between social media use and decline of mental health. Again, eerily similar to the violent video game panic in the 90s. The original congressional hearings on violence in video games followed record-high gun violence in 1993 ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1993_congressional_hearings_on_video_games#Moral_panic_around_gun_violence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1993_congressional_hearings_on... ). Politicians pushed a correlation between increasing popularity of violent video games and increasing gun homicides. It sounds dumb now, but video games were relatively new at the time. The correlation felt right to many, especially those who hadn't grown up with video games in their own lives. I see this social media debate following the same pattern where adults feel that social media is evil and assume evidence will eventually support their feelings. > Because there is no evidence for this. In cases where there is, like in lootboxes, we see a push for legislation. That's rewriting history. Decades ago, there was a huge push for legislation against violent video games long before lootboxes were a thing ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1993_congressional_hearings_on_video_games https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1993_congressional_hearings_on... ) Violent video games have been called out as recently as 2019 by president Trump ( https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/politics-news/trumps-video-game-attack-reignites-decades-old-violence-debate-1230504/ https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/politics-news/trumps-... ) Violent video games have been a political scapegoat for decades. The debate about social media is following in the same footsteps.

TheTester 5y ago
Studies have shown that there is a correlation between social media use and decline of mental health. (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4183915/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4183915/) Not only that but anyone that has used social media can say that to you, specially younger people. Meanwhile studies show there was no correlation between violence and videogames. And except for lag you can't really find a lot of people that will tell you videogames made them violent. (https://www.psychologicalscience.org/publications/observer/obsonline/video-game-mechanics-aggression.html https://www.psychologicalscience.org/publications/observer/o...)
tjs8rj 5y ago
You make a good point, how would we tell the difference though? If social media as it stands causes unreasonable harm to society, how would we know for sure? And how would we know we aren’t making the same mistakes made with demonizing video games?
invalidname 5y ago
There weren't studies back then. Just correlation. We have quite a few studies that show the damages of specific kinds of social media and specific practices by social media. Hell a genocide happened because Facebook fell asleep at the wheel. There are many ways to regulate social media: - Determine constraints and objective statistical goals the ranking algorithm must meet - Blocking and marking fake content etc. Facebook could choose to rank positivity higher but it does the opposite since it increases engagement.
- wutbrodo 5y ago
  > We have quite a few studies that show the damages of specific kinds of social media and specific practices by social media. Hell a genocide happened because Facebook fell asleep at the wheel. Do we actually have these, or are you inferring we do from the general tone of the media conversation around this topic? I'm aware of some correlation studies, and think the topic bears keeping an eye on. Would you mind sharing one of the "quite a few" causal studies you're referring to? > Hell a genocide happened because Facebook fell asleep at the wheel. This is a non sequitur. Facebook didn't cause the genocide any more than Marconi caused the Rwandan genocide or AT&T caused Watergate. Widespread communications technologies and platforms are deeply fundamental to human interaction in the modern age; the only model that marks Facebook as at all causal of Rohingyan persecution requires giving them a nonsensical amount of undue credit for the human interaction that occurs across their platform. Eg, you'd have to make obviously absurd claims like that Facebook is responsible for legalizing gay marriage in the US (activists heavily use FB and other social media platforms to organize). To be clear, I think criticism of FB from the UN et al on the topic of Myanmar is warranted. The nature of the platform is such that the capability can be built out to direct and constrain the conversations that are had, and it's fair to say that Facebook needs to expand the manner in which it does so. But this contradicts your point: the salient difference is the ability to control communication so that it stops violence, which in your framing is a _positive_ of social media. (Note that I'm personally close to an unrestricted speech maximalist, but I'm taking your framing for granted in the above paragraphs)

daveguy 5y ago

I agree. Advertising + algorithms without regulation makes the internet a mathematical optimization for lootboxes. Advertising on the internet should be strongly regulated just like it was on television at one point. I remember when subliminal advertising was a huge scandal / scare. It was regulated on TV. There is absolutely no regulation of it on the internet, and the technology and understanding of reinforcement learning in advertising has grown tremendously since then.

mellavora 5y ago

Um, there actually is a fair amount of evidence that violent video games influence people's thinking. Just as a quick gut-check, ask yourself this: if they didn't change your thinking, why would you play them? Assuming they don't offer any level of excitement or entertainment, what is the point? Evidence: the US army uses FPS to train people for combat, and there is a longer history of what it takes to train people to shoot people: switching from round targets to human-shaped targets makes it a lot easier for soldiers to aim the gun at a person before pulling the trigger. Now clearly most people who play violent video games don't turn into mass killers, but to say that the deep immersion of a FPS doesn't change your thinking is farcical on the face of it.

bildung 5y ago
> Um, there actually is a fair amount of evidence that violent video games influence people's thinking. Then feel free to post the research. This was the core topic of my studies, and to my knowledge there simply is zero evidence of a causal relationship. The US indeed has a big violence problem, but there are actual, established causes, e.g. the high wealth inequality, which is a big predictor for violent crimes in most countries.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
spywaregorilla 5y ago
Why would you assume video games don't offer entertainment?

FDSGSG 5y ago

What do you think of the connection between video games and unemployment? https://www.economist.com/the-economist-explains/2017/03/30/the-link-between-video-games-and-unemployment https://www.economist.com/the-economist-explains/2017/03/30/...

christophilus 5y ago
Sounds like a causation / correlation mistake. Unemployed people find a way to spend their free time. Sounds to me like games are one of the most engaging escapes from the misery of unemployment.
- harpersealtako 5y ago
  I tend to agree with this, but I've started to wonder if that's really true. Is there any way to actually test whether correlation != causation for the link between video games and unemployment? Like, an interventional study of some kind for example.
  - FDSGSG 5y ago
    This is even more interesting in societies where there's little pressure to work, such as nordic welfare states. A lot of men I went to school with in Scandinavia decided they'd rather stay at home and play videogames than find a job.
gchamonlive 5y ago
I think this fits Marcuse's One-Dimensional Man, not a problem with gaming itself.

spywaregorilla 5y ago

There is some evidence, however, that violent media tends to cause people to perceive their surroundings as more dangerous. Certainly not as bad as making people psychos, but worth a second of contemplation.