6 ms·

There is a real public health issue here. Teen mental health really has fallen off a cliff in the last 10 years, in every measure available. Self-reported rates

There is a real public health issue here. Teen mental health really has fallen off a cliff in the last 10 years, in every measure available. Self-reported rates of depression and anxiety disorders have more than doubled. Suicides of 10-14 year olds have more than doubled. Suicides among 14-19 year olds have gone up ~50%. Hospital admissions for non-fatal self harm in girls 10-14 have ~tripled. It's not just an increase in diagnosis. [1] The bulk of the evidence points to smartphones and social media as the primary cause. Specifically, the combination of smartphones video/image based social media causes kids to spend way less social time in person, and to make way more unfavorable social comparisons. Heavy social media use is unambiguously correlated with depression and anxiety. And the studies on causation all show that social media causes mental health issues, not the other way around [2] Between 2003 and 2019 (pre-covid) the amount of time teens spend in person with friends dropped on average from ~144 minutes per day to ~41 minutes per day. How could that not have major health effects? [3]. The only plausible explanation for that drop at that time is smartphones. There are major freedom of speech issues with this sort of regulation. And there are major technical and policy complications to actually implementing a ban. But the evidence is that social media is a public health crisis comparable to opioids. There is a real tradeoff that needs to be made between unlimited access to digital media and public health. Lots of people on HN have a strong reaction against any attempt to regulate the internet. And there have been generations of moral panics about new technologies. But the available evidence show that this time is actually different, and we do need to have a real conversation about whether the health effects on teens are worth it. [1] https://jonathanhaidt.substack.com/p/the-teen-mental-illness-epidemic https://jonathanhaidt.substack.com/p/the-teen-mental-illness... [2] https://jonathanhaidt.substack.com/p/social-media-mental-illness-epidemic https://jonathanhaidt.substack.com/p/social-media-mental-ill... [3] https://jonathanhaidt.substack.com/p/the-new-cdc-report https://jonathanhaidt.substack.com/p/the-new-cdc-report, Figure 4

reb 4y ago
Worth calling out here: that "nearly double" rate is specifically for the 10-14 age range; the next group up is up 30–50%. I say that not to minimize at all... if anything I'm more shocked by this steep rise in younger children.
- whats_a_quasar 4y ago
  Good point, updated my comment to make age/gender brackets clearer
d110af5ccf 4y ago
> Lots of people on HN have a strong reaction against any attempt to regulate the internet, from generations of moral panics about new things. No. That is absolutely not why and betrays precisely the lack of understanding about these things that causes such a response to begin with. Any time you find yourself dismissing widely held concerns you should take a step back and reevaluate if you haven't missed something. Perhaps your life experiences or priorities are different than these people who you encountered who had a "strong reaction"? At least for myself, the primary reasons for such concerns are the frequency with which new regulations have historically resulted in dysfunction and abuse, proved entirely ineffective at solving the stated problem, or both. > There are major freedom of speech issues, and there are lots of other technical and policy complications Right here you acknowledge something which should be cause for very serious concern. Also I think I'd object to your framing of "a public health crisis comparable to opioids". Much of that appears to be attributable to the side effects of the "war on drugs". At absolute minimum the vast majority of overdoses are clearly due to unreliable product quality which is simply not an issue for things purchased legally. So really I'd like to avoid a second "war on drugs" type scenario that seeks to solve a social ill via government intervention, ultimately fails and makes the problem far worse in the process, creates various bureaucratic machinations that are incentivized to ensure future funding for themselves rather than outcomes that are actually beneficial to the general public, and erodes civil liberties in the process.
- whats_a_quasar 4y ago
  I didn't dismiss concerns about freedom of speech. I explicitly acknowledged them in paragraph 4. My point is that there is a tradeoff here, and reasonable people can disagree. That's reasonable a reasonable complaint about how I talked about moral panics. Updated the wording to not say that's the reason for HN's strong reaction. Though I really do think that cultural history is a major factor. > Also I think I'd object to your framing of "a public health crisis comparable to opioids". Much of that appears to be attributable to the side effects of the "war on drugs". At absolute minimum the vast majority of overdoses are clearly due to unreliable product quality which is simply not an issue for things purchased legally. I really don't think this is true. The government didn't cause a generation of people to become addicted to Oxytocin. You can argue about the best way to help, and lots of municipalities are trying harm reduction programs, but I don't think you can pin people ODing on fentanyl on the government. Smoking regulations worked. CFC regulations worked. Automobile safety regulations worked. Sanitary standard regulation worked. Mandatory vaccine campaigns worked. Food and drug safety regulations worked. The clean air act and clean water act mostly worked. Government intervention often goes wrong, but it also often leads to huge increases in well-being. Particularly for addictive things presented to minors.
worrycue 4y ago
> make way more unfavorable social comparisons I wonder if this is a huge part of it. Instead of only having to measure up to your local friend group, who are more likely than not to be close to you in living standards and upbringing, you have to measure up to people all around the world - and most of what’s posted on social media is carefully framed and selected, making things seem better than they are; you can’t even blame them for this as people who post are incentivise to do so to increase their chances to get noticed. One could argue that traditional mass media has already made that a thing. But I feel traditional celebrities have an air of alien-ness to them, they are like Greek gods on Olympus, such that people are less likely to compare themselves to them or at least not do so as seriously. Social media celebrities on the other hand often present themselves as the guy/gal next door. Someone you feel you can be friends with. The fact that they might even directly reply to you via social media further reinforces that perception. All this ratchet up the pressure to measure up and when you fail to, you feel bad.
- MontagFTB 4y ago
  As a parent, this matters more to me than the ads do. Vulnerable teenagers wrestle with their self identity, and cope by doomscrolling their peer’s highlight reels on social media. Even if a kid isn’t shown ads, there’s nothing to disincentivize such unhealthy behavior.
protocolture 4y ago
[flagged]
hbs18 4y ago
> Self-reported rates of depression and anxiety disorders have more than doubled I wouldn't take this as seriously as you do. Self reporting this doesn't mean a whole lot, especially in a culture (among teens) where it's common, and a source of clout even, to assign labels like "trauma" "depression" and "disorder" to things that are not that.

reb 4y ago

Worth calling out here: that "nearly double" rate is specifically for the 10-14 age range; the next group up is up 30–50%. I say that not to minimize at all... if anything I'm more shocked by this steep rise in younger children.

whats_a_quasar 4y ago
Good point, updated my comment to make age/gender brackets clearer

d110af5ccf 4y ago

> Lots of people on HN have a strong reaction against any attempt to regulate the internet, from generations of moral panics about new things. No. That is absolutely not why and betrays precisely the lack of understanding about these things that causes such a response to begin with. Any time you find yourself dismissing widely held concerns you should take a step back and reevaluate if you haven't missed something. Perhaps your life experiences or priorities are different than these people who you encountered who had a "strong reaction"? At least for myself, the primary reasons for such concerns are the frequency with which new regulations have historically resulted in dysfunction and abuse, proved entirely ineffective at solving the stated problem, or both. > There are major freedom of speech issues, and there are lots of other technical and policy complications Right here you acknowledge something which should be cause for very serious concern. Also I think I'd object to your framing of "a public health crisis comparable to opioids". Much of that appears to be attributable to the side effects of the "war on drugs". At absolute minimum the vast majority of overdoses are clearly due to unreliable product quality which is simply not an issue for things purchased legally. So really I'd like to avoid a second "war on drugs" type scenario that seeks to solve a social ill via government intervention, ultimately fails and makes the problem far worse in the process, creates various bureaucratic machinations that are incentivized to ensure future funding for themselves rather than outcomes that are actually beneficial to the general public, and erodes civil liberties in the process.

whats_a_quasar 4y ago
I didn't dismiss concerns about freedom of speech. I explicitly acknowledged them in paragraph 4. My point is that there is a tradeoff here, and reasonable people can disagree. That's reasonable a reasonable complaint about how I talked about moral panics. Updated the wording to not say that's the reason for HN's strong reaction. Though I really do think that cultural history is a major factor. > Also I think I'd object to your framing of "a public health crisis comparable to opioids". Much of that appears to be attributable to the side effects of the "war on drugs". At absolute minimum the vast majority of overdoses are clearly due to unreliable product quality which is simply not an issue for things purchased legally. I really don't think this is true. The government didn't cause a generation of people to become addicted to Oxytocin. You can argue about the best way to help, and lots of municipalities are trying harm reduction programs, but I don't think you can pin people ODing on fentanyl on the government. Smoking regulations worked. CFC regulations worked. Automobile safety regulations worked. Sanitary standard regulation worked. Mandatory vaccine campaigns worked. Food and drug safety regulations worked. The clean air act and clean water act mostly worked. Government intervention often goes wrong, but it also often leads to huge increases in well-being. Particularly for addictive things presented to minors.

worrycue 4y ago

> make way more unfavorable social comparisons I wonder if this is a huge part of it. Instead of only having to measure up to your local friend group, who are more likely than not to be close to you in living standards and upbringing, you have to measure up to people all around the world - and most of what’s posted on social media is carefully framed and selected, making things seem better than they are; you can’t even blame them for this as people who post are incentivise to do so to increase their chances to get noticed. One could argue that traditional mass media has already made that a thing. But I feel traditional celebrities have an air of alien-ness to them, they are like Greek gods on Olympus, such that people are less likely to compare themselves to them or at least not do so as seriously. Social media celebrities on the other hand often present themselves as the guy/gal next door. Someone you feel you can be friends with. The fact that they might even directly reply to you via social media further reinforces that perception. All this ratchet up the pressure to measure up and when you fail to, you feel bad.

MontagFTB 4y ago
As a parent, this matters more to me than the ads do. Vulnerable teenagers wrestle with their self identity, and cope by doomscrolling their peer’s highlight reels on social media. Even if a kid isn’t shown ads, there’s nothing to disincentivize such unhealthy behavior.

protocolture 4y ago

[flagged]

hbs18 4y ago

> Self-reported rates of depression and anxiety disorders have more than doubled I wouldn't take this as seriously as you do. Self reporting this doesn't mean a whole lot, especially in a culture (among teens) where it's common, and a source of clout even, to assign labels like "trauma" "depression" and "disorder" to things that are not that.