35 ms·

Social media can be a ‘profound risk’ to youth, surgeon general warns

• blurbleblurble 3y ago
  The bickering and rationalism in this comment section is predictably insufferable
• gadflyinyoureye 3y ago
  True, but think about how lucrative it can be for a VC. We as a society obviously back VCs over the youth and the future of humanity.
  • CatWChainsaw 3y ago
    You're downvoted because you made the intrepid entrepreneurs here squirm with guilt.
• stainablesteel 3y ago
  how astute
• ChicagoBoy11 3y ago
  I work at a fancy private school and partially am have hosted numerous events for parents on kids and social media. We have been banging on this key for easily the past 8 years, with varying levels of emphasis. The response from parents has also been universally consistent: A lot of nodding, and, ultimately, very little action. There has always been a small but consistent group of parents who stand firmly on their decision to delay giving their child broad access to social media until later, and the vast, vast majority who can't be bothered to. I haven't noticed the scale tip in any direction in all these years.
  • KaoruAoiShiho 3y ago
    What reasonable action could be taken on the parent side? I feel like apps should be regulated to for example, only show up to 20 videos max on tiktok per day to prevent doom scrolling. I don't think preventing kids from accessing social media entirely is viable or reasonable.
    • youreincorrect 3y ago
      Don't give your kid a smartphone or laptop without only whitelisting certain sites. If they somehow get a device without permission, it gets donated.
      • swader999 3y ago
        Isolating them from their peers can be just as mentally devastating. I don't think there is a good solution to this.
        • youreincorrect 3y ago
          They can deal with it. In middle school, I was called a faggot, relentlessly, for not owning a Jansport backpack. I am 100% serious. They'll find friends, I'm pretty sure of it.
          • kzrdude 3y ago
            I still hope that one day we'll find a way to stop that (to a big extent).
            • karaterobot 3y ago
              Some day, we'll all have Jansport backpacks.
              • lotsofpulp 3y ago
                Still using mine from 5th grade 20+ years later. The oldest thing I own.
          • jstarfish 3y ago
            [flagged]
          • yamtaddle 3y ago
            But if they don't have social media, how will they see other kids calling them names for not owning the right backpack outside of school? Think of the harm to their socialization!
  • CharlesW 3y ago
    > There has always been a small but consistent group of parents who stand firmly on their decision to delay giving their child broad access to social media until later, and the vast, vast majority who can't be bothered to. For the latter group, do you feel like it's always willful ignorance? For example, some parents think you're talking about TikTok, when (as I'm sure you know) it often starts with Roblox/Minecraft chat and associated Discord servers. What tools have you found useful to help parents understand and manage this?
    • bart_spoon 3y ago
      Every time this topic comes up, many of the responses here are about how it is pointless to try and impose limits on social media (or anything for that matter) on children, as they will inevitably circumvent them or something like that. To me it comes off like mental gymnastics to excuse a failure to actually parent.
      • hammyhavoc 3y ago
        The same could be said for teen drinking, smoking, casual sex, and drug use. Those who are dead-set on doing it will always find a way, that's the energy of teenage rebellion at work. Whilst I do agree that it's a failure to parent to a large extent, locking things behind restrictions can also make people want it more without them understanding why they're being restricted from having something that clearly makes a lot of people happy. I go back to my teenage self, and if instead of treating me like an idiot, people explained the pros and cons to it, and helped me to understand it, I might just not want it for myself. In the same way that I had teen pregnancy and accidental overdoses explained to me, I understood the risk-to-reward ratio and why people were concerned enough to try and educate about it. FWIW, whilst I don't take drugs, I do believe in legalizing them because punishing users makes precious little sense instead of helping them kick the addiction and get their life on track. However, legalizing of drugs equally doesn't mean I think people should seek them out, but those who are going to take them are probably going to take them anyway, and that should be something we can deal with in an appropriate and compassionate manner.
        • 3y ago
  • bendango 3y ago
    It’s not social media though; it’s the shit show they see through it. That’s not going anywhere. Exploitation of young agency to prop up value stores and ideals of elders is what awaits them away from the screen. Setting themselves aside to clean up the toxic mess of dying generations awaits them. This may come as a shock but I don’t feel an obligation to your existence specifically. Look at the public dismiss public healthcare and demand the kids work just as we did; we censored TV coddling their sensibilities and office jobs to protect the hallucinated value of private corporations. I feel as much obligation to the “American Civic Life” hallucination as I do a more traditional religion. ACL has just taken hold of the biology religion did; causing people to hallucinate I owe them recognizing some spoken meme like “this person has high net worth.” That’s thought policing. Western society is a police state and it spends billions on hypernormalized messaging to insure it stays that way. Not one person on this forum is an obligation to me. You’re all hallucinating authority. Just like the parents you’re complaining about, you’re going to ignore the idea you have real obligation to yourself and society owes you nothing. Vain coddled primate; do it my way! … No. You’re not a divine mandate. Grow that potato.
  • dundercoder 3y ago
    I've worked in tech for 20+ years and I have 4 young kids. We allow our teenager use of a locked down smartphone, with a clearly explained zero expectation of privacy. We don't allow any social media on the phone itself. YouTube and other sites can be used under supervision for agreed on lengths of time. Once or twice a week my wife or I will go through their text messages with them and ask questions about anything that seems off. It is a LOT of work. But so far, it has paid off. The more responsible the usage, the more freedom we give. When bad patterns start surfacing, we rein it in. IMO parents are reluctant to intervene because they either don't know where to start, or struggle with how much work it is.
    • zachturn 3y ago
      > Once or twice a week my wife or I will go through their text messages with them and ask questions about anything that seems off. > IMO parents are reluctant to intervene because they either don't know where to start, or struggle with how much work it is. There are also parents who disagree with this ideology and would find this an invasion of their child's privacy. I'd caution against the thinking "we find this valuable and if people don't do it it's because they aren't willing to put as much work in as we do"
      • deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
      • citizenkeen 3y ago
        The mantra we use with our kids is "We will try and respect your privacy but we aren't bound by it." As I often tell my son, "It's your room but it's my house." And we make it extra clear that the moment they go online, they have no expectation of privacy. Better they learn that someone's snooping now than be surprised when it's Google/Facebook/NSA.
        • greatwave1 3y ago
          I think most children find it significantly more invasive for their parents to be snooping through their messages, than to have that information being collected in some government database.
  • basisword 3y ago
    It feels to me like smoking. A generation was there at the start of social media, got addicted and now can’t quit. Their kids see them doing it and they do the same. Eventually they’ll realise the negative side of it and they’ll try to stop their kids from getting in to it (but won’t quit themselves).
    • ChicagoBoy11 3y ago
      I suspect the analogy between this kind of media consumption and smoking will prove to be far more analogous than we'd like to admit.
      • basisword 3y ago
        [flagged]
  • meghan_rain 3y ago
    did you notice any advantages of the kids that had delayed exposure to social media? ie smarter, better focus, better motivation, better emotional iq? it would be HUGE news if this were the case, very curious about your reply
    • ChicagoBoy11 3y ago
      Anecdotally, yes. We have some students who are very vocal about how they perceived having a more structured early use of social media once they get to nearing the end of high-school. Having said that, I'll caution that this is hardly any sort of statistical evidence, as its that students who suffered because of it (because of not being ostracized, not part of the cool kids who have phone, etc.) didn't feel bothered to come forward in my work. The one VERY CLEAR correlation that I see, though, is that families who are EXTREMELY intentional about this fare far better. More than the minutiae of what age they did or didn't give phones, which apps to allow or not, etc., the families that I have seen have lots of success are families who have dedicated time for these conversations and have made them a habit in their family. The ones who I have seen struggle have been of the "set it and forget it" mentality, even the ones who try to just "install an app" that will just do the parenting for them.
      • meghan_rain 3y ago
        thanks
  • jrochkind1 3y ago
    Does the school allow cell phones in school? If so, why? Relying on parents to somehow prevent their kids from doing what all their peers are doing, I'm not surprised this is a fight parents choose not to have, or don't know how to win, or don't have the energy for. Can the school "be bothered" to try to do something at the school level, that will effect the entire peer group, instead of hoping that parents will find a way to swim against the stream? There might be other ways than simply prohibiting phones. Or maybe the school "can't be bothered" to try?
    • yamazakiwi 3y ago
      Faraday classrooms
    • ChicagoBoy11 3y ago
      We don't until the kids get to high-school. But you'd be hardpressed to notice this: right before they step on campus, or right after dismissal, they all come out. But during the day, they are, in fact, hardly seen.
• EatingWithForks 3y ago
  I argue social media is a profound risk to anyone. It's an entire industry that's made to exploit every insecurity and vulnerability within a human psyche. Nervous about vaccines? Sure, you can go to your local doctor, but in the meantime you ask your fellow parents on Facebook and suddenly someone tells you that not only do these vaccines have the potential to fuck up your child for life, that doctors are totally in denial about it and no one in your friend group has ever had to deal with measles but one or two probably claim to have a vaccine-injured child, so do you really want to risk it? This happens over and over again for anything. Vaccines is just one known example. I'm also talking about gay people. People who have sex before marriage. Immigrants. People with suspiciously dark skin tone. Body image. etc.
  • vmchale 3y ago
    [flagged]
    • AbrahamParangi 3y ago
      Preventing teenagers from doing things that adults can do is pretty normal. They can’t drink, smoke, or drive until they’re old enough - at which point we decide it’s their life. To some extent, if adults want to drink from the firehouse of poison we let them.
      • kelseyfrog 3y ago
        To other extents, we section those who inflict harm upon themselves or are a danger to others. Our social norms are fairly inconsistent on this and it's easy to make a case (though not widely accepted) that the sort of maladaptive social media use by older adults is both a form of psychic self harm and a danger to society.
    • gjsman-1000 3y ago
      Replace "social media" with "alcohol" or "sexual activity." If you are a child, limits are a very good thing. If you are an adult, take responsibility for the stupidity of your own actions. Also, please don't do ad-hominem. For "boomers flaming antivax conspiracies," there's plenty of blame to go around and more than meets the eye. Our health experts also did crap like this that got people who listened to them killed: https://twitter.com/who/status/1243972193169616898?lang=en https://twitter.com/who/status/1243972193169616898?lang=en
• vmchale 3y ago
  [flagged]
  • hardware2win 3y ago
    Ehh Do you believe that you realistically can change grown ass, old adults? They had plenty of time to realize and should have known better. I dont think there is a hope for them. Bet on the youth, they are still malleable
    • bluescrn 3y ago
      > Bet on the youth, they are still malleable Yes, they're the most vulnerable to online propaganda. Sounds like a good reason to keep them away from social media.
      • hardware2win 3y ago
        Thats what im saying
  • stuckinhell 3y ago
    I don't think that's limited to Boomers.
  • deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  • slackfan 3y ago
    Ageism does not suit you well.
• renewiltord 3y ago
  [flagged]
  • xpe 3y ago
    > but it's best to just weight their impact on your belief at 0. Zero? No. A little nuance won’t kill you. It is a good thing.
  • xpe 3y ago
    What are your specific concerns with the advice given in the social media warning?
    • renewiltord 3y ago
      > What are your specific concerns with the advice given in this warning? Social media upturns traditional government controlled information transmission. E.g. the US government built its case for the Iraq War partly on fake information run by the NYT (by the currently media-respected journalist Judith Miller). Control of information transmission by attempting to FUD alternative means is a way to consolidate opinions - a way to manufacture consent. Just like in the intentionally deceptive mask comments from the NIAID, it isn't fact that's in question. It is motivation and intent, and the severity of the condition. In the mask case, they misinformed the public on purpose so that they could perform some societal engineering. You made a lot of comments here, and it is tradition on HN to downvote every comment if you dislike one in a thread so if I respond to them all, I'll get rate limited for being severely downvoted but since you asked for sources: Video interview of Dr. Fauci where he explains the mask deception https://www.thestreet.com/video/dr-fauci-masks-changing-directive-coronavirus https://www.thestreet.com/video/dr-fauci-masks-changing-dire... The CDC tweets against masks https://twitter.com/cdcgov/status/1233134710638825473 https://twitter.com/cdcgov/status/1233134710638825473 Jerome Adams (then SG) tweeted this but now has deleted it so you have to find only references to it https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2020/02/29/health/face-masks-coronavirus-surgeon-general-trnd/index.html https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2020/02/29/health/face-masks-coronav... His admission of fault here https://twitter.com/jeromeadamsmd/status/1416536968821886977?s=46&t=YWmQR089vGAckoy_Njie3A https://twitter.com/jeromeadamsmd/status/1416536968821886977... Response to your comment below: > Are you claiming that public health authorities are seeking to “manufacture consent” broadly? I am claiming (and have receipts for the claims) that public health professionals will provide advice that is damaging or risky in order to protect something else. They will intentionally mislead you so that some imagined total outcome is better. In the past, their attempt to do so resulted in personal harm or death for many (perhaps in the millions) because they're bad at managing the total outcome too. Essentially, they're like a GPS system that intentionally routes you down a slower route so that you won't slow others down on the fast route. Except on matters of much greater import. As always, don't forget to ask: "cui bono?" Response again: Ultimately, I acted as I thought responsible through the pandemic. Which, for my age group, was rapidly not masking and aiming for low dose frequent exposure. So each time I did the opposite of what was recommended and never tested positive despite following a 2 week schedule since I was traveling and didn't want to get anyone else sick. But a lot of people listened and died. So, it's up to you whom you'd rather follow: yourself, incentives aligned, or the guys who'd kill you and your loved ones to save others. I choose me.
• laristine 3y ago
  https://archive.is/WZB2y https://archive.is/WZB2y
• dathinab 3y ago
  It also can be a 'profound life safer' to youth people which live has been saved by the internet warn. It also helps a lot with democracy as it's much harder for autocratic states (or governments aspiring to become such) to censor and mute the news about their bad deeds. The main problem I'm seeing is not "social media" but how exactly it is implemented, often stuffed full of dark patterns designed to lead to addictive behavior and nearly always with no consequence to people which try to use it for scams (targeting young people) harassment and similar. IMHO we need laws to ban "dark patterns" and "engineered addiction" as well as a system to handle and reduce harassment and other abuse. That alone might make enough difference to make any further steps unnecessary. But to be safe early (and reoccurring) education about social media, social media hygiene, and media manipulation would be excellent additions. Just not seeing most governments doing the later point, as it probably would mean them not getting elected again in the future. Another "problem" is that the internet in general allow young people to relatively early see how messed up the world is and at the same time how the people in power often double down on it to gain more power then to fix it. This can lead to a feeling of helplessness and despair young people preferably should not be exposed to. At the same time denying them access to the truth doesn't seem right either. In the end despair and helplessness are like poison, it is what drives people to suicide and it is also what often is a major factor for weather or not a "bad situation" becomes a trauma or not.
  • Snoozle 3y ago
    I see a lot of this argument when social media is brought up. A lot of people generally agree with the idea that there are a lot more supportive environments available on the web than in a traditional small town with narrow ideals. I would argue though that the statistics do not bear this truth out: if having these communities and support groups are so necessary, then why is suicide and mental health worse now than they were prior to the internet?
    • floren 3y ago
      I'm starting to question that idea too. It seems like, just as often, these supportive environments on the web like to spiral down into an attitude of "ONLY this group supports and likes you; the rest of the world is hostile to you. Literal Nazis lurk outside your door ready to murder you. Better just keep posting online, and be sure to warn any new members about the Nazis outside their doors."
• xkbarkar 3y ago
  [flagged]
• andrewmcwatters 3y ago
  I get it, I agree with it, but I also grew up with unfettered access to the Internet during a period of time when the World Wide Web was growing and maturing and you saw a lot of stuff you shouldn’t have as a kid. It seems like extreme helicoptering to restrict your children from things like this that are in the world and it’s an easy way out. Hey! All of a sudden you don’t have to parent. Some software can do it for you. I’d prefer to teach my children right from wrong instead. Not shelter them from it. It’s super weird.
  • svachalek 3y ago
    Me too. But when it was growing and maturing it was a much nicer place. Now it's full on rotten.
  • SV_BubbleTime 3y ago
    I think the difference is we found that on our own. Maybe you showed a friend or two. Maybe you were the one to introduce your friends to ICQ. But those things are nothing like the hyper connected hyper expectations of being constantly online and being part of “current thing”. I get your goals, but I’m not sure as parents we can compete with an absolutely all encompassing relationship with a screen, where the best in the brightest in the world are working constantly to make sure your kids sees x, believes y, repeats z. There is a strong chance that the only way to win is to not play.
  • yifanl 3y ago
    When we were growing up, people weren't getting paid to get us to click on lemonparty.
  • bart_spoon 3y ago
    You could be suffering from survivorship bias
    • andrewmcwatters 3y ago
      Probably. Certainly worth acknowledging. I realize the Internet now isn’t what it was then. Perhaps my approach is naive. I’m sure I’m missing nuance.
• photochemsyn 3y ago
  Advertising can also be a 'profound risk' to youth, leading to the same issues that social media causes - insecurity, low self esteem, addiction to unhealthy products - and social media, business-wise is mostly just a platform that connects advertisers to their target audience. I doubt the surgeon general would directly call this out in the USA, since we're one of the few countries that allows pharmaceutical corporations to market directly to the public (and social media seems to be a big part of their advertising budget).
• wonderwonder 3y ago
  Social media is poison for young minds. My oldest is going into middle school. I'll get him a phone but he will not be allowed to use social media. This includes YouTube. There is no need for it. We already track his iPad use and will do the same with the phone. He does sports, boxing and math tutoring, if he needs more social interaction he can hang out with friends. There is literally nothing on social media that I think a middle school kid needs exposure to in order to become a successful, good, and well rounded person.
  • knaik94 3y ago
    You have the ability to help guide them through social media by helping them understand good and bad. I understand that you might have different beliefs, but social media plays a very critical role in young kids communicating with each other. Covid catalyzed them embracing social media to stay in touch. Youtube also shouldn't be considered social media.
    • wonderwonder 3y ago
      I appreciate your viewpoint but strongly disagree. Children today suffer vastly increasing rates of depression and suicide. I link most of it to social media. My kids talk to their friends just as kids have done for generations. If social media is playing any sort of a critical role in a kids life it's because the parents are not doing it. YouTube is absolutely social media no different than Instagram or TikTok. Even something like Mr. beast who is generally a good guy can warp and expose kids to a suddenly transexual and borderline pedophile character who abandons his wife and child. Anyone can post anything. My goal is to limit what my kids are exposed to in much the same way parents did before social media. It just means I have to be involved which is something we should all strive to do.
      • knaik94 3y ago
        Social media is an important way for kids to communicate to a group of people outside of their immediate friends. Kids born before broadband did not have the option to communicate in the same way, and trying to live that way now will do more harm than good. It's similar to trying to using a dumb phone that is not capable of group messaging as your only form of communication. Mental health issues are very complex and social media is only a communication platform at its core. YouTube is not social media because there's no real network of friends. You have creators making content for users to consume. There are comments under videos, but there's no friends feature or direct messaging. Anyone can't post anything. The rest of the world is going to continue to use social media, limiting access won't change that. My perspective mostly agrees with this Unicef report. https://www.unicef.org/press-releases/done-right-internet-use-among-children-can-increase-learning-opportunities-and-build https://www.unicef.org/press-releases/done-right-internet-us...
• knaik94 3y ago
  I think we are on the tail end of a generation that grew up without internet trying to govern generations that did. The single question that helps me decide whether someone is equipped to address the underlying problem, is asking if they understand the differences between good and bad social media. The difference between good and bad social media is based on the target audience and how potential dark patterns implemented or addressed. As someone that grew up with social media and the internet from the moment I could read, I struggle to understand how social connections worked before it. Broadband become mainstream in just the last ~20 years. Social media that quantifies someone's popularity absolutely affects teenagers' mental health. But social media also means support groups on reddit and places like HN. The surgeon general wants to explore and understand the way different social media affects mental health. But the way this issue is presented by NYT, and in general, categorizes all social media as the same. This framing is going to make younger generations ignore these "warnings" as out of touch, because it is. Similar to how my parents call every game console or video game, "playing the Nintendo". These overgeneralized discussions make most people dig in to their already held beliefs. This also gives overbearing parents fuel to invade the privacy of their children, which harms children's mental health, and leads to trust issues, more than social media ever will.
  • dabluecaboose 3y ago
    I quibble with the notion that there is "good" and "bad" social media, at least as you implicitly defined. Facebook was amazing when it first came out because it allowed people to keep in touch easier and share photos with each other. It also is arguably the progenitor of "bad" social media with tallied likes/reactions and algorithmic skinner boxing of posts. Unfortunately, it boils down more to usage than whether or not a site is a "good/bad" social media. And even a good one can turn bad if it gets too popular and the culture dies (reddit) I don't really know how to feel about it. To me, it feels like smartphones. I recognize the utility but at the same time know that the manufacturers/developers are intentionally designing psychologically addictive patterns to keep me engaged, and am inclined to utilize it less as a result. Which in turn limits the utility I get out of them!
    • andrei_says_ 3y ago
• nineplay 3y ago
  I have lost patience with articles about kids and teens and "social media" that make no attempt to define what social media is. It is no wonder parents won't seriously - particularly when the follow up advice is "don't give your kids phones" as though it's all or nothing. Could we please get a list of social media kids are using and their relative levels of harm? If it's mostly Instagram then say Instagram and parents can uninstall that app. Is it Facebook? (I didn't think kids were using Facebook) Is it TikTok? (I'm not sure I'd classify TikTok as social media) Twitter? Reddit? Roblox? Shared google docs? Group texts? Hacker news? If we can figure this out then we can have a productive talk about kids and phones and pros and cons. Do I have to point out that phones have more uses than social media? Can kids call and text? Can they access Wikipedia? Can they play Minecraft? Can they take photos? Saying "no phones" is throwing the baby out with the bathwater. It shouldn't be hard to have intelligent, thoughtful discussions on kids and the internet. For some reason, no one ever does.
  • im3w1l 3y ago
    The reason they don't say is because they don't know.
    • nineplay 3y ago
      How can they claim that this is all backed up by research if they don't know what social media is? What is the link they are finding? It doesn't feel like science. It feels like hand-waving, correlation, and anecdote.
      • im3w1l 3y ago
        Well imagine this experiment. You take 100 kids and put them into the animal enclosures at a local zoo. Some are put with sheep, some with birds, some with sharks, and lions and others with elephants. You notice that more of these kids these die than the control group that went to the zoo but outside the animal enclosures. Conclusion: wildlife dangerous. What you cannot conclude certainly is which wildlife is dangerous, there simple weren't enough participating kids. Maybe the reason the kid put with the lion lived is because lions are safe, or maybe it was because the lion was just fed. That would take a follow-up study to find. And what about kangaroos? The zoo didn't even have so we would have to try to extrapolate.
• sidcool 3y ago
  There are so many contradicting studies from experts that I have lost interest. Too much of anything is bad. But how much is OK for kids? I see very young kids exposed to content, philosophy and culture that's not native to their parents.
• 13years 3y ago
  It is a profound risk to everyone in different ways. It's very nature induces abnormal behavior. I recently wrote an article of some perspectives on the topic. Focusing on how the lack of privacy is a key factor. https://open.substack.com/pub/dakara/p/uniform-thought-machines https://open.substack.com/pub/dakara/p/uniform-thought-machi...
• gnicholas 3y ago
  Has anyone had any luck getting schools/districts to publicize this type of info? It seems like there's a coordination problem, where X% of parents would not want kinds to be on social media for a long time, Y% of parents who want their kids on social media, and Z% of parents who would prefer no social media but don't care that much. If everyone knew how large the X+Z percentage was, there could be a large enough group that most kids wouldn't be on social media, and they wouldn't feel bad about it or miss out on most social activities. But as it stands, Y% have their kids on social media, Z% go along for the ride so they don't miss out, and then X% have a tough choice to make. It would be great if schools had presentations for parents (and kids) that talk about these potential harms, and encouraged families to make decisions in the long-term interest of their kids. This could have the side benefit (for the school) of reducing smartphone usage, which distracts kids during school. I'm thinking of talking to my kids' school about this, since they spend so much time/money on all sorts of presentations/trainings already, and often for stuff that would be less impactful. I'd even encourage them to tell students that parents use phones too much, and they can feel free to bug us to have no-phone time. That would get the kids invested in the concept, and make it less likely they fall prey to smartphone addiction.
• ChipSkylark 3y ago
  I'm picturing energetic and socially conscious "hip" 20-somethings doing a country-wide elementary school tour where the whole school gathers in an auditorium to watch them rap about the dangers of social media. If it works for cigarettes...
  • tayo42 3y ago
    Thinking about myself and what I remember. What worked for cigarettes was, graphic demonstrations of health issues along with lots of real proof. The government and society made it inconvenient to use it everywhere. I don't they held back, I remember getting shown rotting lungs, the effects of lung cancer, holes in the throat, yellow teeth. Lots of death statistics.
  • nvarsj 3y ago
    This is your brain on Social Media. sizzle
• zackmorris 3y ago
  D.A.R.E. to Keep Kids Off Social Media Wages stagnated since 1980. Rents doubling every decade. Dead-end service jobs. Unpayable student loans. Social Security payments going to IOUs instead of retirements. Lying politicians and chief corporate officers making bank on the backs of the working poor. 30% credit card interest. Delaying childbirth to make rent until it's too late. GMO and processed foods poisoning giving an obese population autoimmune disease. Republicans gerrymandering elections. Democrats supporting neoliberal colonialism. A burning natural world set to end between 2050 and 2100. The list of threats to anyone younger than 50 is so infinite and growing so rapidly that social media is the new drugs in the endless war on youth culture. You know, the one that inconveniently lists the problems and solutions only to be told over and over again to sacrifice their dreams and get serious and study and get a job, that it's all in their heads.
  • ajsnigrutin 3y ago
    Yep, this is how you get violent revolutions... people look at the average rent and an average paycheck/pension, realize they literally have nothing left to lose, and once they realize who's to blame, things (sometimes literally) explode. Luckily (/s) we have social media to shift blame off of politicians to other groups of people, to fight eachother instead of the ones who profit from all this.
    • adversaryIdiot 3y ago
      Luckily we have social media to divide and conqueror us. and more media and junk food to keep us in our homes. Only thing in question now is the home.
      • 93po 3y ago
        Also social media that cracks down violently on dissenting opinions and negativity of any sort. Try to find a non-mainstream political subreddit - they've all been banned.
    • KoftaBob 3y ago
      > once they realize who's to blame You mean the NIMBYs in their metro area that try to slow down new housing production as much as possible?
• StrangeATractor 3y ago
  A lot of comments in this thread remind of cigarette companies dismissing health concerns with tobacco. In my circle of friends and family I've seen the majority of them go from being people you could talk to and spend time with to people that just stare at their phones constantly, I've heard others say the same about their circles. Parents let Youtube raise their kids because they don't want to get their eyes off the screen themselves. You could be on a luxury vacation on a yacht in the Mediterranean but they never get off their damn phones. There's no way that's healthy. That's not even getting into how social media shapes your mind at a young age. I have two teachers in the family and they both say that kids have become borderline retarded since around 2010. The multi billion dollar attention economy wants to dodge responsibility by holding an unrealistic standard of evidence for their externalities but use your common sense. Humanity has never had anything that constantly demands your attention, are we just supposed to pretend it will have no effect on our mental health?
  • mtlmtlmtlmtl 3y ago
    I've noticed that some of the funniest people I know have started using Tiktok in the last couple years, and their sense of humour has completely vanished. Now they just send me these dumb short video clips that are more cringe than funny, and it seems like they can't even make a good joke in person anymore.
  • gsk22 3y ago
    It's hard not to notice that this is essentially the same argument people made against TV ("the boob tube"). People just stare at the TV constantly. Parents let the TV raise their kids. People watch TV even on vacation. TV has made kids stupid. And it probably goes back further -- can you believe the parents letting radio raise their kids? Don't get me started on the children who spend all day staring at words in a book. I have a teacher friend who says cuneiform carvings have made kids stupid since around 1000 BC. Now obviously overconsumption of any media can be unhealthy, but there seems to be a lot of fear-mongering over social media that isn't well-justified. It's just "old man yells at clouds" for the digital age. Lots of broad assertions and very little evidence to back them up.
• m463 3y ago
  Does hacker news qualify as social media? The paper talks about the amount of time spent, taking time away from sleep and physical activity. This might apply. I don't think other factors like privacy or cyberbullying apply here.
  • deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  • tyleo 3y ago
    I consider Hacker News social media but I think it’s pretty benign compared to others. Below my threshold of caring or feeling that I need to correct my behavior.
• sandworm101 3y ago
  They said the same about early cellphones. They said the same about walkmans. They said the same about rap music. They said the same about TV. They said the same about comic books. They said the same about rock and roll. Go back far enough and they said the same about the printing press. Ok boomer. Can we please first address the real issues?
  • paulpauper 3y ago
    It is always something. How many times can they cry wolf until we stop taking them seriously, stop giving them taxpayer dollars for research? Anything that people find enjoyable must have some huge consequence for society or individually. People are not allowed to have fun. It's sorta like secular puritanism. It is out of control.
  • Minor49er 3y ago
    They said the same about cigarettes and asbestos too. Damn boomers!
  • CatWChainsaw 3y ago
    What are "the real issues"?
• paulpauper 3y ago
  Now that drugs and cigarettes are passe, social media is the latest thing to be hyped by sociologists, health experts, and the media as a crisis. Same for vaping. Every generation has its crisis and nags. In the 90s it was in regard to violent lyrics in music affecting the youth and causing suicides (even though the problem was vastly overblown). These people want to take away our fun.
  • CastFX 3y ago
    yeah but in the 90s you didn't have a measurable and significant increase in teenage suicides and depression, right?
• mnd999 3y ago
  It’s a profound risk to anybody. You don’t become immune when you hit 18.
• syngrog66 3y ago
  I just made a comment on another HN story about social media and mental illness, and a game/sim project I'm building to address it. in some (hopefully) constructive way: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36049027 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36049027
• svtxvt 3y ago
  [flagged]
• svtxvt 3y ago
  [flagged]
• wolverine876 3y ago
  It should have been obvious from a parenting perspective. How did we become such idiots that we need healthcare professionals to tell us (which we do need)? Do you want your child exposed to any arbitrary adult or other child, doing or talking about or showing any arbitrary thing, and in an environment that encourages and celebrates unconstrained sociopathic behavior? It should have been an easy call for any parent long ago, and adult social media needs to be treated like a bar or R or NC-17 rated movie - not a place for children. Bars that don't keep out children are considered nuisances to the neighborhood and shut down. Did you know that in some (maybe most) places, if someone leaves a bar and trashes the neighbor's car, the bar is liable?
• kart23 3y ago
  I deleted all social media around the end of 6th grade. This was around the time that instagram was just getting popular, and I had made it at the start of the school year when I got my first smartphone. I remember thinking I was spending too much time on it, and I realized it was stressing me out for absolutely no reason. I decided to get on social media again in my junior year of college, after having essentially no social media from 6th grade til 2nd year of college. Honestly, I wished I hadn't deleted it. It made me feel like I had missed connecting with my friends, I sometimes look at my friends old posts and feeling a little left out. And there are countless people I could probably still be in at least a little bit of touch with. And I know I'll get people saying that its pointless because I'm not friends with them irl, but I still kinda enjoy seeing what even acquaintances are up to these days on social media. Social media is a part of life now, and forcing your kids off it isn't gonna automatically make them live healthier lives. Let them make their own decision at least, they really are smart enough. So much of life happens online these days: college, the workplace, dating, etc. Kids need to learn how to communicate over the internet because they're going to be doing it for the rest of their lives, and social media really does help with that.
  • grugagag 3y ago
    > Honestly, I wished I hadn't deleted it. It made me feel like I had missed connecting with my friends, I sometimes look at my friends old posts and feeling a little left out. You’d still feel left out even if you were on social media too, and you’d have that feeling 10 fold. The only reason for that feeling is social media pressure and not actually connecting to people IRL. If you did connect to people IRL you did the right thing and what you’re experiencing is just a surface level illusion.
• carabiner 3y ago
  Every time I see this notion pop up (which I 100% agree with), I think back to how YC published a list of potential startup ideas from current YC participants. One of them was a social network for kids. Just terrible and I'm so glad we've come to realize their harms.
• hurtuvac78 3y ago
  It is just a matter of time before we admit that the profound risk is not specific "to youth", but to everybody. Adults are just as addicted, with pretty much the same consequences.
• Wensio 3y ago
  This one is a no brainer. You can see people blatantly lie on social media about how amazing they are then run into them in the office and see them just as miserable as the rest of us. Kids are just going to believe whatever they see their favorite influencer do or whatever they say and this goes for everyone on their social media. It's just an echo chamber of anxiety, immediate dopamine release and unrealistic expecations of how the real world works. Wasn't there an article not too long ago about how they watched ONE video about suicide or something similar and tiktok just filled their page with suicide content? Anyone that gets fed the same thing over and over is eventually going to feel some sort of effect. A kid will feel the same but worse since the critial thinking skills arent all there yet.
• tjpnz 3y ago
  Not taking any chances here. When mine are old enough I'm blocking all SNS in my home at the network level and applying parental controls to their mobile devices. Fuck Mark Zuckerberg and all of the charlatans who've followed in his footsteps.
• dahwolf 3y ago
  The warning is correct, I'm really quite sure that any sane individual readily observes that being chronically online isn't exactly good for you. They'll notice this in others but most also have the self-awareness to see the problem in themselves. Providing "guidance" on adequate use sounds so naive though. It's like telling an overweight person that the guidance is to eat less. Trust me, they know this already.