the whole insistence on going with what they believe in, 'social apps bad' (and kinda just that, not really going deeper into 'what are the interactions', etc.)

the whole insistence on going with what they believe in, 'social apps bad' (and kinda just that, not really going deeper into 'what are the interactions', etc.), just makes this seem kinda off (and gives a 'collaborative confirmation bias' vibe). sure, apps exist, but is it 'apps' or 'people being social'. and they kinda touch on that, but still fall back to 'social media bad' as a clickbait headline. 'it's kinda not about that, but let me engage in clickbait anyway'. 'being on a social app' is a high level / ambiguous enough of a thing, that trying to tie a rise in 'communication availability' and 'people being online' to rises in other things, kinda doesn't connect. (well, not as directly of a 'cause-effect', muddled with all the various ways that 'use'/'online' can be.) sure, it may be 'screen time', 'time spent online', but then just say that, not like it's 'social media being there, at all' if they want to continue milking that headline, great. i just no longer see 'pointing at social apps and saying social app bad' as interesting, insightful, or valuable, at all. it's saying nothing.