4 ms·

Does this come in the context of this Senate hearing [0] ? According to Guardian (UK) """ tech executives faced four hours of intensive questioning from

Does this come in the context of this Senate hearing [0] ? According to Guardian (UK) """ tech executives faced four hours of intensive questioning from Congress members """ Four hours doesn't seem like much. My students can sleep through a 4 hour lecture! """ Parents of children who died by suicide after experiencing online harms packed the Senate for the hearing on Wednesday. Senator Lindsey Graham said the event drew "the largest [audience] I've seen in this room". """ If so, this headline is a distraction from the issues at hand. Paedophilia is not what is primarily being discussed here. It's more generally that children are harmed by social media. And as far as I am concerned that is a solid fact. """ In his first remarks, Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg cast doubt on the relationship between social media use and a decline in mental health. "The existing body of scientific work has not shown a causal link between using social media and young people having worse mental health," he said. """ Zuck is an outright liar. There are now mountains of exceptionally good research showing a solid causal link between social media use and negative mental health impacts on young people (no, I will not google that for you, please do your own homework). """ Twitter, became the first tech firm to publicly endorse the Stop CSAM Act """ Of course, because CSAM, while abhorrent, is the perfect distraction from the problem that your entire platform is socially corrosive. [0] https://www.theguardian.com/technology/live/2024/jan/31/congress-social-media-hearing-tiktok-meta-twitter-child-safety-latest-updates https://www.theguardian.com/technology/live/2024/jan/31/cong...

sirsinsalot 3y ago
I agree 100% with your points. Zuck and FB are profiting from damaging the mental health of people. At least with McDonald's, nobody is saying a daily diet of McDonalds is healthy. Whenever I see people saying "no, I will not google that for you, please do your own homework" they basically take a grenade to whatever argument is being made, agreeable nor not. No ... YOU ... cite your sources if you wish to communicate a fact-backed point.
- nonrandomstring 3y ago
  Fair comment. It doesn't sound good does it. I've grown weary, lazy... no exhausted of continually pointing people to things like [0], and the inevitable sealions who will pretend they've been living under a rock for 20 years. Also the new research is coming in so fast it's hard to keep track of. I'm really hoping some people will google that for me too, and I might learn some new ones. [0] https://ledger.humanetech.com/ https://ledger.humanetech.com/
henryaj 3y ago
> There are now mountains of exceptionally good research showing a solid causal link between social media use and negative mental health impacts Given that essentially every young person uses social media, I don't see how there can be research showing a causal link - how can you establish causality when there's no control group?
- nonrandomstring 3y ago
  > every young person uses social media If you'd read this [0], which was the first result for "young people social media use" then you'd know that in Germany, for example only 52% use social media, Poland (58%), Czech Republic (56%), France (70%), Netherlands (65%), India (31%). At least one third of the global population under 16 yo do not use social media. There's your control group. [0] https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2020/04/02/8-charts-on-internet-use-around-the-world-as-countries-grapple-with-covid-19/ https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2020/04/02/8-charts-...
coderedart 3y ago
> Zuck is an outright liar. There are now mountains of exceptionally good research showing a solid causal link between social media use and negative mental health impacts on young people (no, I will not google that for you, please do your own homework). what is the point of the statement if you call someone a liar, claim that there exists material to prove the lie and then say, that you will not link to this material?.
- nonrandomstring 3y ago
  Intellectual curiosity (as per our guidelines) I'd like you to show some too. Obviously you won't be able to refute what I said, because there are no papers out there that show there isn't a causal link between social media use and harms to mental health. That would be asking the impossible. But there is a massive and no longer ignorable body of work out there saying indeed there are direct causal links between social media use and mental harms. And Zuck just pretended that doesn't exist. You know, I was actually hoping someone smarter and with more time than me would come back with something I'd missed. Mark Zuckerberg stood up in front of a room full of grieving mothers and gave a limp, fake apology that made them burst into tears. His sheer lack of humanity and emotional disconnect with other humans could hardly be clearer. """ "The existing body of scientific work has not shown a causal link between using social media and young people having worse mental health," Zuckerberg told the crowded room. Lori Schott, a bereaved mother from Colorado, said she cried when she heard Zuckerberg’s comments. """ Those mums showed up to the hearing with photos of their dead kids who had killed themselves as a direct result of using social media. My point is less emotional. Given the preponderance of evidence against Zickerbergs comments, he lied. So, above I said that means Mark Zuckerberg just lied to congress and that makes him a criminal in the US right? Whether under oath or not. That's why I was downvoted. Nothing to do with encouraging you to do a simple search, which you could have done in the time it took you to write a snarky reply. [0] https://www.theguardian.com/media/2024/feb/01/parents-tech-ceos-us-senate-hearing https://www.theguardian.com/media/2024/feb/01/parents-tech-c...

sirsinsalot 3y ago

I agree 100% with your points. Zuck and FB are profiting from damaging the mental health of people. At least with McDonald's, nobody is saying a daily diet of McDonalds is healthy. Whenever I see people saying "no, I will not google that for you, please do your own homework" they basically take a grenade to whatever argument is being made, agreeable nor not. No ... YOU ... cite your sources if you wish to communicate a fact-backed point.

nonrandomstring 3y ago
Fair comment. It doesn't sound good does it. I've grown weary, lazy... no exhausted of continually pointing people to things like [0], and the inevitable sealions who will pretend they've been living under a rock for 20 years. Also the new research is coming in so fast it's hard to keep track of. I'm really hoping some people will google that for me too, and I might learn some new ones. [0] https://ledger.humanetech.com/ https://ledger.humanetech.com/

henryaj 3y ago

> There are now mountains of exceptionally good research showing a solid causal link between social media use and negative mental health impacts Given that essentially every young person uses social media, I don't see how there can be research showing a causal link - how can you establish causality when there's no control group?

nonrandomstring 3y ago
> every young person uses social media If you'd read this [0], which was the first result for "young people social media use" then you'd know that in Germany, for example only 52% use social media, Poland (58%), Czech Republic (56%), France (70%), Netherlands (65%), India (31%). At least one third of the global population under 16 yo do not use social media. There's your control group. [0] https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2020/04/02/8-charts-on-internet-use-around-the-world-as-countries-grapple-with-covid-19/ https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2020/04/02/8-charts-...

coderedart 3y ago

> Zuck is an outright liar. There are now mountains of exceptionally good research showing a solid causal link between social media use and negative mental health impacts on young people (no, I will not google that for you, please do your own homework). what is the point of the statement if you call someone a liar, claim that there exists material to prove the lie and then say, that you will not link to this material?.

nonrandomstring 3y ago
Intellectual curiosity (as per our guidelines) I'd like you to show some too. Obviously you won't be able to refute what I said, because there are no papers out there that show there isn't a causal link between social media use and harms to mental health. That would be asking the impossible. But there is a massive and no longer ignorable body of work out there saying indeed there are direct causal links between social media use and mental harms. And Zuck just pretended that doesn't exist. You know, I was actually hoping someone smarter and with more time than me would come back with something I'd missed. Mark Zuckerberg stood up in front of a room full of grieving mothers and gave a limp, fake apology that made them burst into tears. His sheer lack of humanity and emotional disconnect with other humans could hardly be clearer. """ "The existing body of scientific work has not shown a causal link between using social media and young people having worse mental health," Zuckerberg told the crowded room. Lori Schott, a bereaved mother from Colorado, said she cried when she heard Zuckerberg’s comments. """ Those mums showed up to the hearing with photos of their dead kids who had killed themselves as a direct result of using social media. My point is less emotional. Given the preponderance of evidence against Zickerbergs comments, he lied. So, above I said that means Mark Zuckerberg just lied to congress and that makes him a criminal in the US right? Whether under oath or not. That's why I was downvoted. Nothing to do with encouraging you to do a simple search, which you could have done in the time it took you to write a snarky reply. [0] https://www.theguardian.com/media/2024/feb/01/parents-tech-ceos-us-senate-hearing https://www.theguardian.com/media/2024/feb/01/parents-tech-c...