3 ms·
That would be worth something in a debate, where truth is the goal. But this isn't a debate, this is a decision. The agent is Meta. The field is their products
by JellyBeanThief 3y ago
That would be worth something in a debate, where truth is the goal.
But this isn't a debate, this is a decision. The agent is Meta. The field is their products. The goal is reduced teen mental health issues. And the buck stops with Zuckerberg.
"Correlation does not prove causation" alone is not an excuse to avoid an action. It is a principle that can be used to compare actions for how likely they are to achieve the goal, and so it must be combined with some other action and evidence that makes that other action appear more likely to work. Without that, then the action suggested by the correlation remains the action most likely to work, and so it must still be taken.
If, for whatever reason, Zuckerberg doesn't want these changes to be made, then he needs to either dole out resources to gather the evidence he demands and which may free him from them, or he needs to implement some other action which may turn out to work.
If he doles out the resources, and the evidence comes back and establishes causation, then he has to make the changes. It sucks for him, but the goal isn't to please Zuckerberg, it's to reduce teen mental health issues.
If he doles out the resources, and the evidence comes back failing to establish causation, then that's convenient for him. But he still has to try something else, because the goal is reduced teen mental health issues and it has not been achieved.
If he goes straight to implementing some other action, and it at least appears to work, then he doesn't have to make the changes he didn't want to make. That's great for him, and since teen mental health issues were reduced, he can put it behind him.
If he goes straight to implementing some other action, and it doesn't work, then still has to try something else, because the goal is reduced teen mental health issues and it has not been achieved.
- blackoil 3y agoAny evidence to support that other social network like Snapchat, TikTok, Twitter don't promote such behaviors, what about communication platforms like iMessage, Telegram, WhatsApp, SMS etc. Do we have evidence that smartphone is not net harmful for tweens, teens and adults in general. Why isn't govt doing large enough meta studies on it? Is it Meta empire or social media or smartphones or Internet itself is responsible for mental health issues? And why does buck stop with Zuckerberg, not parents, school, govt. Why do under 13 have a smartphone? Is the usage monitored? Should Govt bring legislations on how much phone can be used for social media/video games by a child? Should bullying be handled at local level instead of a Corp controlling all?
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- mlrtime 3y agoCompletely agree, The buck stops with parents. Meta should keep the filters and actively develop more filters that users want and enjoy. It can also create resources for parents to better deal with the risks of social media, the two are not in conflict.
- thrixton 3y agoFor generations we’ve had this concern that technology leads to poor outcomes, Johnny just wastes his time watching TV/Gaming etc… Still, parents, due to various factors had to let their kids be kids, and fend for themselves. The kids didn’t seem to suffer massive mental health issues though, things pretty much worked out in the end. Fast forward, parents may be more overworked, or may be addicted to the same devices we’re discussing here, so things may be slightly worse, but we’re seeing massive mental health challenges (not solely as a result of insta etc…). Parents are ill equipped to cope with this from my experience, companies are weaponizing their apps to draw eyeballs with a level of competency never seen before, we have few defences, it needs to be on the co. / gov.