4 ms·

Sure, rather than go after the actual source of the problem (large social media companies that knowingly enact policies that harm children), that would ruffle t

Sure, rather than go after the actual source of the problem (large social media companies that knowingly enact policies that harm children), that would ruffle too many donor feathers, so we make a gesture at correcting the problem that will ultimately do very little to protect children. Wonderful. Sorry for my cynicism but this is so beyond the pale. If he'd given literally any other reason I would buy it, I do not believe smart phones have a place on campus during school hours for most use cases.

sigmonsays 2y ago
how do you address the source of the problem? Isn't removing cell phones during school use a step in the right direction?
- JohnMakin 2y ago
  Hold social media companies like meta accountable for the harm they know they are inflicting on children? Why is that impossible?
  - emblaegh 2y ago
    What do you suggest they persecute facebook for? Making their app too fun for school?
    - JohnMakin 2y ago
      Are you unaware of this massive story? https://www.thewellnews.com/mental-health/whistleblower-says-meta-execs-knew-social-media-can-harm-kids/ https://www.thewellnews.com/mental-health/whistleblower-says... There are plenty of other examples, such as default features they can put into place to protect children from harassment that they simply do not do.
      - emblaegh 2y ago
        So what? Killing a scapegoat does not a problem solve. You shut down facebook and then what happens? Everyone shuts the phone and enjoy the sunset or would they all just move to the next addictive app? Marlboros are not harmful, tobacco is. If we managed to largely curb smoking, it was by restricting access to tobacco.
        JohnMakin 2y ago
        A scapegoat? Who is the problem then, if not them? No one is suggesting shutting them down either - the proposal is to hold them accountable for enacting policies they know harm children. Who in their right mind would be against that except a meta astroturfer? It would help your argument a lot more if you didn't resort to ridiculous hyperbole like this.
        cooper_ganglia 2y ago
        >Who is the problem then, if not them? Why is that the only people responsible for their children in any way at all whatsoever are never held accountable?? It is always, 100%, in every and all cases, the parent's fault. Either they're too stupid to know better, or they simply don't care.
  - pessimizer 2y ago
    Why is it easier than getting rid of phones?
  - RankingMember 2y ago
    Social media is far from the only distraction on phones, though. I spend next to zero time on social media, but my phone is nevertheless a powerful distraction for all the other things it can do.
    - JohnMakin 2y ago
      Ok, but that's entirely separate from the reason given for the proposed phone ban.
      - DiggyJohnson 2y ago
        I don't think social media addiction and other-mobile-phone-screen addiction are "entirely separate" reasons, no?
      - RankingMember 2y ago
        Is it? He used the surgeon general's recent moves as a starting point in his statement and continued "When children and teens are in school, they should be focused on their studies — not their screens.".
cooper_ganglia 2y ago
I couldn't disagree more. Children don't need 24/7 unfettered access to intensely dopaminergic mental stimulation that is equivalent to junk food. They need focused minds, not the constantly searching monkey mind that is amplified by having a phone in your pocket from age 13.
- superkuh 2y ago
  >intensely dopaminergic mental stimulation Adults need to stop regurgitating 1970s era neuroscience tropes long proven false as if they were facts. You come off like someone pointing at their monitor declaring the internet is broken because the monitor is set to the wrong display input. Not even wrong. These extremely scientificially incorrect memes re: "dopamine" and "screens" are far more dangerous to society than looking at screens ever could be because they're used to justify use of physical force against human persons in contexts where there is no force or coercion or fraud.
  - Kiln6125 2y ago
    There are quite a few of these studies from the modern era about the effect that these devices have on children. They posit the exact opposite of what you're saying here, and have data to back it up. I presume that these are what you're referring to as "non-scientific" here and have specific issues with their methodology, and not just disliking the concept that phone/social media could be bad in some fashion. Can you explain why they are all false?
    - superkuh 2y ago
      I'll put in as much effort in my rebutal as was shown in the initial false statement (very little). In the 60/70s there was this idea that dopaminergic populations of neurons (of which there are many with different roles, but here lets simply talk about the mesolimbic populations in the ventral tegmental area (VTA) and nucleus accumbens (NAc). Early electrophysiological studies found that activiating these populations could lead to animal models doing whatever was necessary to get them stimulated again. This lead to the idea of dopamine as the "pleasure chemical". But since then it's been found that in the VTA and (shell of) the NAc the dopaminergic populations don't actually encode for pleasure or reward at all. The reward/pleasure is mediated almost entirely by glutamergic neurons in the NAc, and the dopaminergic projections there from the VTA encode for belief in possible future reward, not reward itself. Dopamine is wanting (prediction of liking), not liking. Furthermore, the idea that screens are a special type of stimuli that can directly bypass the senses and act like a dopaminergic drug to increase incentive salience (wanting) without there being intrinsic pleasure to the stimuli is absurd and unsupported magical thinking. It needs no special disproval; the burden of proof is on such a wild unphysical claim. Screens are not, and cannot be "addictive". That word has a medical meaning and it does not cover screens. You may object and say, "But what of gambling?" to which I respond, the DSM5+ and ICD10 both have it as "gambling disorder" because it's not an addiction and it's a grandfathered in disorder at that; all by itself. Additionally, the DSM spent the last decade addressing the potential issue of "screens" and each commitee returned with the same conclusion: not enough evidence for inclusion (latest was 2022). If you really do want to learn the nitty gritty details and see the references I suggest starting with Kent Berridge's lab on affective neuroscience and his review papers, https://sites.lsa.umich.edu/berridge-lab/publications/ https://sites.lsa.umich.edu/berridge-lab/publications/
pnw_throwaway 2y ago
Found the smartphone addict
pessimizer 2y ago
Social networks aren't the only reason that phones shouldn't be in schools. There are very few good reasons why a kid should be looking at their phone in school. Kids having phones is just a sweet spot where parental paranoia (legitimate) intersected with the opportunity to indulge your children (they're begging for it), with a luxury item that kids could discriminate against each other over (social disorder.) I accept that it's understandable that we did the experiment, because it was a new device, but it offers no significant benefit to the parents and children (in fact playing into their neuroticism), and allowed companies a new way to go after those children to exploit their insecurities for money. It's moronic that we got rid of Saturday morning cartoons because they were just longform ads aimed at kids (but they were fun!), yet we allowed this contagion in school. They shouldn't even be on Wikipedia in school. There's a teacher there, speaking, and a book. Look at Wikipedia at home. The teacher is expensive and only available at certain times, Wikipedia is cheap and always there.

sigmonsays 2y ago

how do you address the source of the problem? Isn't removing cell phones during school use a step in the right direction?

JohnMakin 2y ago
Hold social media companies like meta accountable for the harm they know they are inflicting on children? Why is that impossible?
- emblaegh 2y ago
  What do you suggest they persecute facebook for? Making their app too fun for school?
  - JohnMakin 2y ago
    Are you unaware of this massive story? https://www.thewellnews.com/mental-health/whistleblower-says-meta-execs-knew-social-media-can-harm-kids/ https://www.thewellnews.com/mental-health/whistleblower-says... There are plenty of other examples, such as default features they can put into place to protect children from harassment that they simply do not do.
    - emblaegh 2y ago
      So what? Killing a scapegoat does not a problem solve. You shut down facebook and then what happens? Everyone shuts the phone and enjoy the sunset or would they all just move to the next addictive app? Marlboros are not harmful, tobacco is. If we managed to largely curb smoking, it was by restricting access to tobacco.
      - JohnMakin 2y ago
        A scapegoat? Who is the problem then, if not them? No one is suggesting shutting them down either - the proposal is to hold them accountable for enacting policies they know harm children. Who in their right mind would be against that except a meta astroturfer? It would help your argument a lot more if you didn't resort to ridiculous hyperbole like this.
        cooper_ganglia 2y ago
        >Who is the problem then, if not them? Why is that the only people responsible for their children in any way at all whatsoever are never held accountable?? It is always, 100%, in every and all cases, the parent's fault. Either they're too stupid to know better, or they simply don't care.
- pessimizer 2y ago
  Why is it easier than getting rid of phones?
- RankingMember 2y ago
  Social media is far from the only distraction on phones, though. I spend next to zero time on social media, but my phone is nevertheless a powerful distraction for all the other things it can do.
  - JohnMakin 2y ago
    Ok, but that's entirely separate from the reason given for the proposed phone ban.
    - DiggyJohnson 2y ago
      I don't think social media addiction and other-mobile-phone-screen addiction are "entirely separate" reasons, no?
    - RankingMember 2y ago
      Is it? He used the surgeon general's recent moves as a starting point in his statement and continued "When children and teens are in school, they should be focused on their studies — not their screens.".

cooper_ganglia 2y ago

I couldn't disagree more. Children don't need 24/7 unfettered access to intensely dopaminergic mental stimulation that is equivalent to junk food. They need focused minds, not the constantly searching monkey mind that is amplified by having a phone in your pocket from age 13.

superkuh 2y ago
>intensely dopaminergic mental stimulation Adults need to stop regurgitating 1970s era neuroscience tropes long proven false as if they were facts. You come off like someone pointing at their monitor declaring the internet is broken because the monitor is set to the wrong display input. Not even wrong. These extremely scientificially incorrect memes re: "dopamine" and "screens" are far more dangerous to society than looking at screens ever could be because they're used to justify use of physical force against human persons in contexts where there is no force or coercion or fraud.
- Kiln6125 2y ago
  There are quite a few of these studies from the modern era about the effect that these devices have on children. They posit the exact opposite of what you're saying here, and have data to back it up. I presume that these are what you're referring to as "non-scientific" here and have specific issues with their methodology, and not just disliking the concept that phone/social media could be bad in some fashion. Can you explain why they are all false?
  - superkuh 2y ago
    I'll put in as much effort in my rebutal as was shown in the initial false statement (very little). In the 60/70s there was this idea that dopaminergic populations of neurons (of which there are many with different roles, but here lets simply talk about the mesolimbic populations in the ventral tegmental area (VTA) and nucleus accumbens (NAc). Early electrophysiological studies found that activiating these populations could lead to animal models doing whatever was necessary to get them stimulated again. This lead to the idea of dopamine as the "pleasure chemical". But since then it's been found that in the VTA and (shell of) the NAc the dopaminergic populations don't actually encode for pleasure or reward at all. The reward/pleasure is mediated almost entirely by glutamergic neurons in the NAc, and the dopaminergic projections there from the VTA encode for belief in possible future reward, not reward itself. Dopamine is wanting (prediction of liking), not liking. Furthermore, the idea that screens are a special type of stimuli that can directly bypass the senses and act like a dopaminergic drug to increase incentive salience (wanting) without there being intrinsic pleasure to the stimuli is absurd and unsupported magical thinking. It needs no special disproval; the burden of proof is on such a wild unphysical claim. Screens are not, and cannot be "addictive". That word has a medical meaning and it does not cover screens. You may object and say, "But what of gambling?" to which I respond, the DSM5+ and ICD10 both have it as "gambling disorder" because it's not an addiction and it's a grandfathered in disorder at that; all by itself. Additionally, the DSM spent the last decade addressing the potential issue of "screens" and each commitee returned with the same conclusion: not enough evidence for inclusion (latest was 2022). If you really do want to learn the nitty gritty details and see the references I suggest starting with Kent Berridge's lab on affective neuroscience and his review papers, https://sites.lsa.umich.edu/berridge-lab/publications/ https://sites.lsa.umich.edu/berridge-lab/publications/

pnw_throwaway 2y ago

Found the smartphone addict

pessimizer 2y ago

Social networks aren't the only reason that phones shouldn't be in schools. There are very few good reasons why a kid should be looking at their phone in school. Kids having phones is just a sweet spot where parental paranoia (legitimate) intersected with the opportunity to indulge your children (they're begging for it), with a luxury item that kids could discriminate against each other over (social disorder.) I accept that it's understandable that we did the experiment, because it was a new device, but it offers no significant benefit to the parents and children (in fact playing into their neuroticism), and allowed companies a new way to go after those children to exploit their insecurities for money. It's moronic that we got rid of Saturday morning cartoons because they were just longform ads aimed at kids (but they were fun!), yet we allowed this contagion in school. They shouldn't even be on Wikipedia in school. There's a teacher there, speaking, and a book. Look at Wikipedia at home. The teacher is expensive and only available at certain times, Wikipedia is cheap and always there.