7 ms·

The first of those is a reaction to another piece: > Psychologist Candice Odgers recently stated the skeptics' case in an essay in Nature titled The Great Rewi

The first of those is a reaction to another piece: > Psychologist Candice Odgers recently stated the skeptics' case in an essay in Nature titled The Great Rewiring: Is Social Media Really Behind an Epidemic of Teenage Mental Illness? The second and third are by the same person, who keeps mentioning his new book for some reason. The fourth includes a counterpoint: > “Those who feel worse may turn to social media for solace or community,” Dr Amy Orben, research fellow at Emmanuel College, University of Cambridge, said of the research. “It’s not a vacuum, it works both ways." The fifth is an opinion piece by a computer scientist about careers. Oh, you added some more while I was writing this. Stop it? So for the two extra ones: the APA one opens with "Using social media is not inherently beneficial or harmful to young people." The other one is by the same guy as the NYT opinion piece, who incidentally also has a new book out on the subject.

toomuchtodo 2y ago
The comment I replied to said there is no proof of social media addiction. That is false. One does not need to convince folks on HN, only policymakers. California and Florida (both enacting such regulation) are the first and third most populated states in the US, respectively, with a total population of ~61.5M people. Federal legislation is pending in Congress. https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/senate-bill/4213/text https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/senate-bill/421...
- card_zero 2y ago
  OK, congress can't be wrong.
  - toomuchtodo 2y ago
    What makes you right on the topic? A belief system based on a personal mental model? Genuine question. Provide evidence it is a net positive compared to the robust evidence of harm it causes, or evidence that revoking or regulating access for children is going to cause harm vs being neutral; children lived lives before social media, for example. Continued unregulated access to social media is likely to cause harm to children and teens, based on available evidence. Not having access? What harm does that cause?
    - card_zero 2y ago
      What "robust evidence of harm it causes"? Which of your many links is the robust one? And why is this on me? Yes, I think it's a moral panic, there are many previous examples of x entertaining thing supposedly corrupting young minds (or female minds, going further back). But you have to show how it's harmful. What is meant by "addictive" in the "addictive online feeds" that this prohibits? Extra points if you manage not to say "dopamine".
      - hollerith 2y ago
        >many previous examples of x entertaining thing supposedly corrupting young minds My reply to that is that in fact newspapers, paperback romance and adventure novels, jazz, rhythm and blues, rock music, television, video games and pornography probably have been broadly harmful (particularly to children and teenagers) but we didn't have a detailed neuroscientific description of the mechanism of harm when they were introduced, so the people pointing out the harms were ignored or shouted down, and now that those things are no longer in the news, people believe they know all they need to know about them, with the result that most believe that the verdict of history is that those thing are benign. And it is tricky because all of those things plus social media and Youtube can be and often are used in such a way that they do not cause harm. And they all have positive effects as well as harmful effects.
        card_zero 2y ago
        Hee. I applaud the boldness of this theory, and I will be wary about seductive rhythms and over-exciting fantasies in future. (I must confess to being a jazz user.)
        hollerith 2y ago
        Maybe I'm in the group that tends to be harmed by newspapers, paperback romance and adventure novels, jazz, rhythm and blues, rock music, television, video games and pornography unless they have the knowledge needed to have a healthy relationship with them (knowledge which is not exactly routinely taught in high school) and your in the group that tends not to be harmed by them.
Capricorn2481 2y ago
> Oh, you added some more while I was writing this. Stop it? Now how is this offensive to you?
- card_zero 2y ago
  Because it's a scattergun approach, and a dirty trick. The large volume of references gives the impression of being overwhelmingly supported by evidence, but they're really low quality, the points are contentious, and many are the same author repeated. Also, to argue back, we have to actually read the fucking things.

toomuchtodo 2y ago

The comment I replied to said there is no proof of social media addiction. That is false. One does not need to convince folks on HN, only policymakers. California and Florida (both enacting such regulation) are the first and third most populated states in the US, respectively, with a total population of ~61.5M people. Federal legislation is pending in Congress. https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/senate-bill/4213/text https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/senate-bill/421...

card_zero 2y ago
OK, congress can't be wrong.
- toomuchtodo 2y ago
  What makes you right on the topic? A belief system based on a personal mental model? Genuine question. Provide evidence it is a net positive compared to the robust evidence of harm it causes, or evidence that revoking or regulating access for children is going to cause harm vs being neutral; children lived lives before social media, for example. Continued unregulated access to social media is likely to cause harm to children and teens, based on available evidence. Not having access? What harm does that cause?
  - card_zero 2y ago
    What "robust evidence of harm it causes"? Which of your many links is the robust one? And why is this on me? Yes, I think it's a moral panic, there are many previous examples of x entertaining thing supposedly corrupting young minds (or female minds, going further back). But you have to show how it's harmful. What is meant by "addictive" in the "addictive online feeds" that this prohibits? Extra points if you manage not to say "dopamine".
    - hollerith 2y ago
      >many previous examples of x entertaining thing supposedly corrupting young minds My reply to that is that in fact newspapers, paperback romance and adventure novels, jazz, rhythm and blues, rock music, television, video games and pornography probably have been broadly harmful (particularly to children and teenagers) but we didn't have a detailed neuroscientific description of the mechanism of harm when they were introduced, so the people pointing out the harms were ignored or shouted down, and now that those things are no longer in the news, people believe they know all they need to know about them, with the result that most believe that the verdict of history is that those thing are benign. And it is tricky because all of those things plus social media and Youtube can be and often are used in such a way that they do not cause harm. And they all have positive effects as well as harmful effects.
      - card_zero 2y ago
        Hee. I applaud the boldness of this theory, and I will be wary about seductive rhythms and over-exciting fantasies in future. (I must confess to being a jazz user.)
        hollerith 2y ago
        Maybe I'm in the group that tends to be harmed by newspapers, paperback romance and adventure novels, jazz, rhythm and blues, rock music, television, video games and pornography unless they have the knowledge needed to have a healthy relationship with them (knowledge which is not exactly routinely taught in high school) and your in the group that tends not to be harmed by them.

Capricorn2481 2y ago

> Oh, you added some more while I was writing this. Stop it? Now how is this offensive to you?

card_zero 2y ago
Because it's a scattergun approach, and a dirty trick. The large volume of references gives the impression of being overwhelmingly supported by evidence, but they're really low quality, the points are contentious, and many are the same author repeated. Also, to argue back, we have to actually read the fucking things.