3 ms·
> Everything in here runs completely contradictory to the body of science from the past decade. I'd say it doesn't so much contradict the existing science as i
by 0xcde4c3db 3y ago
> Everything in here runs completely contradictory to the body of science from the past decade.
I'd say it doesn't so much contradict the existing science as it suggests the possibility that the population-level correlations we see are not explained by direct effects of social media use on individuals.
Just as an illustrative example, suppose Alice has an higher-than-average need for in-person social interaction in order to remain mentally healthy, and so has decided not to use social media. If the people around Alice start spending more than some critical percentage of time on social media instead of in-person socializing, then her mental health might decline even though she doesn't use social media.
- ImaCake 3y agoGreat example! Its hard to think of a topic more complex and obtruse than social interactions. There are going to be no straightforward answers here because social media is a conduit. Its like arguing whether home telephones are bad; its not really the phone’s fault if some arsehole keeps calling you or if it helps you stay in touch with loved ones - its merely the tech facilitating social interaction.
- Pannoniae 3y agoYup, anecdotal evidence: I'm pretty much Alice. I avoid social media, but I can't avoid its effects - since everyone else doesn't, what social media does also indirectly affects me. It definitely affects me negatively how people around me have goldfish attention spans, it definitely affects me when they try to drag me into nonsensical trends, etc...