3 ms·

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 whe

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
  We live in an environment of dark patterns and sophisticated engines designed for addiction. Our attention - and our kids attention is being extracted and resold. The algorithm-ization of social media feeds to promote addictive behaviors optimized to maximize addiction triggers for the personality of every single individual + the maximization of paid content (sometimes ads, sometimes secretly promoted) has long replaced the feeds serving the interest of the user. The enshittification of social media is in place and the platforms are basically competing to squeeze the last few remaining drops of our attention, already having collected and monetized most of that resource.
- RandallBrown 3y ago
  Good and bad social media doesn't have to be rigidly defined along brand/product lines. Facebook can be an extremely helpful and useful tool for keeping in touch with your friends and something that is addictive and harmful to your mental health.
bonadrag 3y ago
> But social media also means support groups on reddit and places like HN. As a father of 3 young children, my view is that social media like reddit, tumblr, discord, facebook, instagram, twitter should be out of bounds for anybody younger than 16. I would really like them avoid until their very late teens, early 20s but I know this will be impossible. The risks far outweigh the benefits, perhaps a social feed monitored by a parent is fine, but never unsupervised, the damage is real and kids can be pulled into niche subjects that may form their personality in their teen years with no sight to the long term damages. Call me square I don't care. HN and other forums with a somewhat narrow interest/focus are fine by me, in fact I would somewhat encourage them to read and participate in these activities. People here tend to be more genuine about their interest and they tend to keep it narrow--just look at how little traction political discourse gets on this site, it's refreshing, people on this site are intrinsically focused at the task at hand.
- knaik94 3y ago
  Social media is a method of communication at its core. Excluding kids from social media now also excludes them from social interactions. Being excluded is also damaging, and we no longer live in a world where not being on social media is practical.[1] It's better to teach them how to identify problematic content from a very young age and guide them. Blocking access will not accompish the goal you are hoping to accomplish. I think the demographics of who falls and shares misinformation and fake news demonstrates my perspective. "It is possible that an entire cohort of Americans, now in their 60s and beyond, lacks the level of digital media literacy necessary to reliably determine the trustworthiness of news encountered online." [2] 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... https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.aau4586 https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.aau4586
mvdtnz 3y ago
> 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. Do you not see how this is a problem?

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
We live in an environment of dark patterns and sophisticated engines designed for addiction. Our attention - and our kids attention is being extracted and resold. The algorithm-ization of social media feeds to promote addictive behaviors optimized to maximize addiction triggers for the personality of every single individual + the maximization of paid content (sometimes ads, sometimes secretly promoted) has long replaced the feeds serving the interest of the user. The enshittification of social media is in place and the platforms are basically competing to squeeze the last few remaining drops of our attention, already having collected and monetized most of that resource.
RandallBrown 3y ago
Good and bad social media doesn't have to be rigidly defined along brand/product lines. Facebook can be an extremely helpful and useful tool for keeping in touch with your friends and something that is addictive and harmful to your mental health.

bonadrag 3y ago

> But social media also means support groups on reddit and places like HN. As a father of 3 young children, my view is that social media like reddit, tumblr, discord, facebook, instagram, twitter should be out of bounds for anybody younger than 16. I would really like them avoid until their very late teens, early 20s but I know this will be impossible. The risks far outweigh the benefits, perhaps a social feed monitored by a parent is fine, but never unsupervised, the damage is real and kids can be pulled into niche subjects that may form their personality in their teen years with no sight to the long term damages. Call me square I don't care. HN and other forums with a somewhat narrow interest/focus are fine by me, in fact I would somewhat encourage them to read and participate in these activities. People here tend to be more genuine about their interest and they tend to keep it narrow--just look at how little traction political discourse gets on this site, it's refreshing, people on this site are intrinsically focused at the task at hand.

knaik94 3y ago
Social media is a method of communication at its core. Excluding kids from social media now also excludes them from social interactions. Being excluded is also damaging, and we no longer live in a world where not being on social media is practical.[1] It's better to teach them how to identify problematic content from a very young age and guide them. Blocking access will not accompish the goal you are hoping to accomplish. I think the demographics of who falls and shares misinformation and fake news demonstrates my perspective. "It is possible that an entire cohort of Americans, now in their 60s and beyond, lacks the level of digital media literacy necessary to reliably determine the trustworthiness of news encountered online." [2] 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... https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.aau4586 https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.aau4586

mvdtnz 3y ago

> 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. Do you not see how this is a problem?