4 ms·

I wonder if we at as a society at some point will decide that any "flow which which constantly provides short feedback loop high and lows with no substantial us

I wonder if we at as a society at some point will decide that any "flow which which constantly provides short feedback loop high and lows with no substantial user interaction between" should be treated like gambling. I I mean AFIK they do affect the brain in similar ways as gambling and seem to have the potential to do quite a bit of damage for the development of young children, and at least in case of Ticktock in combination with other mental/social issues can drain you wallet as much as gambling). That might inst kill Tiktok, YT Shorts and affect any software providing engagement optimized endless feeds or similar to at least some degree (i.e. Instagram). Sure that would be a radical step. But from the limited knowledge I have, it would be a clear strong net positive for society, with drawbacks limited to the companies which provided such services and a small number (compared to the population) of creators which due to there focus area/skills aren't cable to have success with other content creation.

red_admiral 2y ago
Jonathan Haidt has a book out (The Anxious Generation) arguing for a causal link between children having smartphones with social media, and the massive increases in depression, suicidality, anxiety and other negative effects in teenagers and young adults over the last decade or so (I believe 2012 is roughly when Haidt claims it all started). It may well be that Tiktok and the like turn out to have worse second-order effects than DDT, smoking, CFCs, leaded gasoline and other things we've banned or heavily restricted.
- EMIRELADERO 2y ago
  Note that Haidt's work is... disputed, to say the least. https://www.thedailybeast.com/the-coddling-of-the-american-parent https://www.thedailybeast.com/the-coddling-of-the-american-p...
  - robertlagrant 2y ago
    Everyone's work is disputed. What in particular do you want to say that you disagree with in Heidt's work, and what's your justification?
    - ceejayoz 2y ago
      The article seems to lay that out fairly effectively. What in particular do you want to say that you disagree with in Masnick's work, and what's your justification?
      - vixen99 2y ago
        You mean you can't summarize it in a sentence of two?
        ceejayoz 2y ago
        You mean like "Jonathan Haidt’s new book 'The Anxious Generation' blames youth mental health issues on social media in a way that’s easy, wrong, and dangerous."? (The subtitle of the article.) The poster upthread is demanding specifics that are contained in the very article they're asking for specifics from.
        robertlagrant 2y ago
        > in a way that’s easy, wrong, and dangerous These aren't specifics. It sounds like "here're the conclusions you should memorise; if you can be bothered to read the article that'd be fine."
        ceejayoz 2y ago
        You asked for specifics. The other guy asked for a one-sentence summary. The specifics you seek are in the article. As an example: > Looking at suicide rates (which are more indicative of actual depression rates, rather than self-reported data, given the decreasing stigma associated with admitting to dealing with mental health issues), the numbers show that in many countries it has remained flat or decreased over the past 20 years. Indeed, in countries like France, Ireland, Denmark, Spain, and New Zealand, you see a noticeable decline in youth suicide rates. If social media were inherently causing an increase in depression, that would be an unlikely result. or: > Specifically, they note new guidance in the U.S. under the Affordable Care Act in 2011 that increased screening of adolescent girls for depression (the rise in depression rates for adolescent girls being key to Haidt’s argument), and a second change in instructing clinicians to record suicidal ideation differently than in the past. Do you disagree with these specific criticisms?
  - red_admiral 2y ago
    In principle, the truth could be either of a. social media is strongly positive for kids, and Haidt is at best cherry-picking evidence and at worst being actively dishonest. b. social media is strongly negative for kids, but there's lots of money involved and so people are trying to shut down anyone who says otherwise, just like the tobacco industry kept yelling "it's disputed! it's not proven!"
    - pjc50 2y ago
      c. social media is negative and positive, probably averaging negative, but people writing pop-sci tend to be hacks. It's possible for someone to be directionally correct and all their evidence is garbage; a common problem in progressive social causes.
    - dathinab 2y ago
      The world in general tend to not work in extrema. I think there is a good reason Haidts work is disputed, but that doesn't mean there is no truth in it either.
- cuu508 2y ago
  He talked about the book in a recent Conversations with Tyler podcast episode: https://conversationswithtyler.com/episodes/jonathan-haidt-anxious-generation/ https://conversationswithtyler.com/episodes/jonathan-haidt-a... It's an untypical episode, usually Tyler just rapid-fires questions, but here he takes the opposite view (on the balance, social networks are a good thing for teens) and debates quite a bit.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
perihelions 2y ago
- "clear strong net positive for society," This has been debated to death for centuries already: of course it's a clear net positive, in the same sense that prohibiting alcohol, cannabis, regulating video games, legislating sex, putting ankle monitors on fat people to monitor their activity levels—all these things are "obvious" social improvements: in practice, not at all. These isn't a novel debate. It's a revisited, misguided paternalism to imagine you can fix people's (admittedly defective!) lives, make them healthier and better people, through coercive political agencies supervising and guiding them. (A less charitable comment would substitute "authoritarian" for "paternalistic"). There's two experiments running in parallel right now. If you want to live a free human in a free society, live in the West; if you want to try the alternative of a benevolent father-government, go to the Middle Kingdom—go somewhere where you can assume that lifestyle, where government shuts off your addictive video games, puts social credit scores on your alcohol purchases, sends social police to re-harmonize your life when it's un-harmonized. Where (of course) TikTok has been banned for a long time already, and all dis-harmonious, time-wasting social media is already helpfully filtered out of your life by a nationwide internet filter. Please don't turn the West into the East: speaking for myself, I would like the option of living in a free society, somewhere. Unfiltered internet access is a core part of that.
- the_af 2y ago
  I don't disagree with what you're saying, but I'd say this thing with attention grabbing/addictive feedback loops seems to be qualitatively different. Are you truly a "free" citizen if corporations have hacked your brain? This wouldn't be a ban on consumption either. It's not penalizing the person who drinks alcohol or uses cannabis or pays for sex. It's going after the providers, who are not small-time like hookers, but huge businesses like Facebook and YouTube. And it'd not be banning the content itself (so it's not Thought Police) but regulating the ways to provide such content; it's going after the hack-your-brain marketing tactic. I don't know if it's feasible but it seems fundamentally different to your other examples, and doesn't seem an example of Nanny State either. An addict doesn't really have "free choice".
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
Tainnor 2y ago
I don't think I would agree with banning addictive social media platforms, but I would like to see them heavily regulated, meaning: * Opt-in to "engagement algorithms". By default, people should only be seeing things that they're explicitly following and in some sort of neutral way (e.g. sorted by date). * "Engagement algorithms" need to be transparent. It should be clear why I'm seeing what I'm seeing. This implies accountability of the platforms themselves. If the Facebook algorithm ends up promoting genocidal violence, they shouldn't be able to hide behind "it was the algorithm".
- dathinab 2y ago
  I should have been more clear. My idea was to tread it like gambling (and to be more clear that doesn't mean classify it as gambling). Which in case of the country I'm from means it's not allowed for children, and in general with some subtle exceptions neither for teenagers. But is allowed for adults. But is also regulated quite a bit when used by adults (e.g. regarding to transparency, advertisements, age verification and other topics). That still would kill Ticktok and YT Shorts their main mode of operation had been to capture new users in the teen and child age range and then beet on them staying around.

red_admiral 2y ago

Jonathan Haidt has a book out (The Anxious Generation) arguing for a causal link between children having smartphones with social media, and the massive increases in depression, suicidality, anxiety and other negative effects in teenagers and young adults over the last decade or so (I believe 2012 is roughly when Haidt claims it all started). It may well be that Tiktok and the like turn out to have worse second-order effects than DDT, smoking, CFCs, leaded gasoline and other things we've banned or heavily restricted.

EMIRELADERO 2y ago
Note that Haidt's work is... disputed, to say the least. https://www.thedailybeast.com/the-coddling-of-the-american-parent https://www.thedailybeast.com/the-coddling-of-the-american-p...
- robertlagrant 2y ago
  Everyone's work is disputed. What in particular do you want to say that you disagree with in Heidt's work, and what's your justification?
  - ceejayoz 2y ago
    The article seems to lay that out fairly effectively. What in particular do you want to say that you disagree with in Masnick's work, and what's your justification?
    - vixen99 2y ago
      You mean you can't summarize it in a sentence of two?
      - ceejayoz 2y ago
        You mean like "Jonathan Haidt’s new book 'The Anxious Generation' blames youth mental health issues on social media in a way that’s easy, wrong, and dangerous."? (The subtitle of the article.) The poster upthread is demanding specifics that are contained in the very article they're asking for specifics from.
        robertlagrant 2y ago
        > in a way that’s easy, wrong, and dangerous These aren't specifics. It sounds like "here're the conclusions you should memorise; if you can be bothered to read the article that'd be fine."
        ceejayoz 2y ago
        You asked for specifics. The other guy asked for a one-sentence summary. The specifics you seek are in the article. As an example: > Looking at suicide rates (which are more indicative of actual depression rates, rather than self-reported data, given the decreasing stigma associated with admitting to dealing with mental health issues), the numbers show that in many countries it has remained flat or decreased over the past 20 years. Indeed, in countries like France, Ireland, Denmark, Spain, and New Zealand, you see a noticeable decline in youth suicide rates. If social media were inherently causing an increase in depression, that would be an unlikely result. or: > Specifically, they note new guidance in the U.S. under the Affordable Care Act in 2011 that increased screening of adolescent girls for depression (the rise in depression rates for adolescent girls being key to Haidt’s argument), and a second change in instructing clinicians to record suicidal ideation differently than in the past. Do you disagree with these specific criticisms?
- red_admiral 2y ago
  In principle, the truth could be either of a. social media is strongly positive for kids, and Haidt is at best cherry-picking evidence and at worst being actively dishonest. b. social media is strongly negative for kids, but there's lots of money involved and so people are trying to shut down anyone who says otherwise, just like the tobacco industry kept yelling "it's disputed! it's not proven!"
  - pjc50 2y ago
    c. social media is negative and positive, probably averaging negative, but people writing pop-sci tend to be hacks. It's possible for someone to be directionally correct and all their evidence is garbage; a common problem in progressive social causes.
  - dathinab 2y ago
    The world in general tend to not work in extrema. I think there is a good reason Haidts work is disputed, but that doesn't mean there is no truth in it either.
cuu508 2y ago
He talked about the book in a recent Conversations with Tyler podcast episode: https://conversationswithtyler.com/episodes/jonathan-haidt-anxious-generation/ https://conversationswithtyler.com/episodes/jonathan-haidt-a... It's an untypical episode, usually Tyler just rapid-fires questions, but here he takes the opposite view (on the balance, social networks are a good thing for teens) and debates quite a bit.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

perihelions 2y ago

- "clear strong net positive for society," This has been debated to death for centuries already: of course it's a clear net positive, in the same sense that prohibiting alcohol, cannabis, regulating video games, legislating sex, putting ankle monitors on fat people to monitor their activity levels—all these things are "obvious" social improvements: in practice, not at all. These isn't a novel debate. It's a revisited, misguided paternalism to imagine you can fix people's (admittedly defective!) lives, make them healthier and better people, through coercive political agencies supervising and guiding them. (A less charitable comment would substitute "authoritarian" for "paternalistic"). There's two experiments running in parallel right now. If you want to live a free human in a free society, live in the West; if you want to try the alternative of a benevolent father-government, go to the Middle Kingdom—go somewhere where you can assume that lifestyle, where government shuts off your addictive video games, puts social credit scores on your alcohol purchases, sends social police to re-harmonize your life when it's un-harmonized. Where (of course) TikTok has been banned for a long time already, and all dis-harmonious, time-wasting social media is already helpfully filtered out of your life by a nationwide internet filter. Please don't turn the West into the East: speaking for myself, I would like the option of living in a free society, somewhere. Unfiltered internet access is a core part of that.

the_af 2y ago
I don't disagree with what you're saying, but I'd say this thing with attention grabbing/addictive feedback loops seems to be qualitatively different. Are you truly a "free" citizen if corporations have hacked your brain? This wouldn't be a ban on consumption either. It's not penalizing the person who drinks alcohol or uses cannabis or pays for sex. It's going after the providers, who are not small-time like hookers, but huge businesses like Facebook and YouTube. And it'd not be banning the content itself (so it's not Thought Police) but regulating the ways to provide such content; it's going after the hack-your-brain marketing tactic. I don't know if it's feasible but it seems fundamentally different to your other examples, and doesn't seem an example of Nanny State either. An addict doesn't really have "free choice".
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]

Tainnor 2y ago

I don't think I would agree with banning addictive social media platforms, but I would like to see them heavily regulated, meaning: * Opt-in to "engagement algorithms". By default, people should only be seeing things that they're explicitly following and in some sort of neutral way (e.g. sorted by date). * "Engagement algorithms" need to be transparent. It should be clear why I'm seeing what I'm seeing. This implies accountability of the platforms themselves. If the Facebook algorithm ends up promoting genocidal violence, they shouldn't be able to hide behind "it was the algorithm".

dathinab 2y ago
I should have been more clear. My idea was to tread it like gambling (and to be more clear that doesn't mean classify it as gambling). Which in case of the country I'm from means it's not allowed for children, and in general with some subtle exceptions neither for teenagers. But is allowed for adults. But is also regulated quite a bit when used by adults (e.g. regarding to transparency, advertisements, age verification and other topics). That still would kill Ticktok and YT Shorts their main mode of operation had been to capture new users in the teen and child age range and then beet on them staying around.