Florida bill banning kids from social media

[BCP1928]

If you work in the IT sector, I will ask you how many of your colleagues began their IT acumen before the age of 16 fiddling around with computers, the internet, and social media? Do you think a law such as this hampers to any degree our future IT wizards and entrepreneurs?

On Friday nights from middle school on, I had a basement full of boys doing online gaming, having LAN parties, etc. By the time they were 17, they had started a web design company serving local businesses. Three of those boys are now IT or Software engineers or software engineering managers for one of the top two tech companies in the world making super high salaries, more than I have ever made in my life. Two others are running IT systems in private companies.

My role was to keep them in pizzas and periodically yell at them (as encouraged by my then-church) to shut off the computers and go get a life. Maybe go to a school football game, see a movie, date a girl. They didn't much listen. Now there are five 30-year-olds that can buy and sell me many times over. They did pretty good at getting a life. They were too active w/ computers to be out running around getting into trouble. No one ran amok.

Was that a fluke or is social media not always the great Satan it is sometimes made out to be?

Not a fluke, just all too rare. I was going to post that there was a good deal of fine effort to craft a stick to keep kids off social media, but not much work is being done on the carrot. How is it that the most engaging activity at school is gossiping with friends on tiktok?

 

[keith99]

Not a fluke, just all too rare. I was going to post that there was a good deal of fine effort to craft a stick to keep kids off social media, but not much work is being done on the carrot. How is it that the most engaging activity at school is gossiping with friends on tiktok?

Well, the people who decided it was not safe to let kids outside without adult supervision pretty much destroyed the carrot in this case. So, after their heirs ban online social interaction just what are the young supposed to do for fun?

While social media has some problems, the isolation that would be created by locking kids out would be far worse. With the nasty twist that those older would still have social media and in effect be flaunting it.

 

[Brihaha]

Well, the people who decided it was not safe to let kids outside without adult supervision pretty much destroyed the carrot in this case. So, after their heirs ban online social interaction just what are the young supposed to do for fun?

While social media has some problems, the isolation that would be created by locking kids out would be far worse. With the nasty twist that those older would still have social media and in effect be flaunting it.

Social media is creating the isolation in children. These are surprising I must admit. I learned about this connection ten years ago in college. I was quite surprised myself. I thought my retired FBI psychology professor was gaslighting us but he opened my eyes.

Social Media Causes Isolation in Teens

What's the most important thing in a teen's life? If we were to ask young people this question today, they'd...

exploringyourmind.com

Social Media and Isolation Connection - Digital Citizen Academy

The use of social media makes teens more prone to mental health related issues such as isolation and depression. The overuse leads to anxiety and lonliness.

digitalcitizenacademy.org

Social Media Often Makes Teens Feel Even More Alone

A decrease in social media use should be your teen’s resolution.

www.psychologytoday.com

What did previous generations do for fun? They obviously survived, I think kids today could easily survive without being on a phone all day. I really do.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Ability to connect and collaborate with other people that may have similar hobbies and interests.

The children that are on social media early don't appear to have many interests or hobbies...or friends.

Now, I'm not saying this 9yo survey is irrelevant....it may have been entirely relevant 9 years ago. That aside...this is one of the oddest Pew surveys I've seen in awhile. It's not as if I think Pew isn't good at what they do....nor do I think they're particularly biased. This survey has some rather large flaws though, imo. Consider some of these conclusions....

1. Social media helps teens make new friends, and stay in contact with old ones. Teen users feel more connected to their friends lives.
2. 88% of teens feel too connected with social media friends. They seem to have too much involvement in personal lives.
3. Teen social media users curate and express themselves in ways online that they cannot in real life.
4. Teen social media users notice that they are excluded from events involving their friends, but the vast majority are unbothered by this exclusion.

1-2 are very interesting because 1 seems like a generous reframing of 2. If you feel like you're too connected with your friends because of social media...it certainly follows that you would answer affirmatively to the question of "does social media connect you to your friends more?".

3-4 are interesting because they give clues to the rather shallow and superficial nature of these social media "friendships". The person curating a specific image on social media is essentially catfishing/larping/faking the idea of who they are. When excluded from real personal interaction, those people don't feel rejected much....and it's likely because they understand on some level those people aren't really who they claim to be, nor is the person rejected. They are not upset because there's no real rejection happening...just a rejection of a false persona.

On a longer time-line, I think that it's going to be seen as something similar to giving a child alcohol at 8 and letting them drink in "moderation". It appears to be developmentally stunting an entire generation on both an emotional and rational/critical thinking level. The lack of real social interaction with live people has disabled young adults in ways that are difficult to describe. They appear extremely emotionally fragile, entitled, unable to accept responsibility, accountability, or guilt. They seem obsessed with attention to a narcissistic degree...to the point of destroying any shred of dignity for it. The "incel community" is imo wholly a result of social media and very little else....and while it may be more suicidal than homicidal, I think we can agree it's not a great outcome.

Social media provides some utility other than merely sharing memes and political bickering.

Chapter 4: Social Media and Friendships

Given the thorough integration of social media into the lives of the majority of American teens, it is no surprise that these sites play an important role

www.pewresearch.org

I don't know if it's one topic in particular.

Well I picked that example specifically for the overlap between politics, child harm, and social media.

I think many on the right see both the institutions of Academia and Tech as strongholds of the left (and there is a measure of truth to that),

A measure....sure. I think both sides see academia as the realm of the left. I think big T tech is seen as a leftist stronghold....almost arrogantly....by the left. Once someone creates some platform which doesn't cater to their viewpoint...or in Elon Musk's case...buy's one that did and then removes the viewpoint discrimination, they seek to destroy that particular platform.

.

and see those institutions as having more influence in shaping what their kids may end up believing than they do (and there's also a measure of truth to that).

No disagreement here...and that's part of the problem. Tiktok is a CCP app. What they use it for isn't likely to be in our best interests.

Unlike education (which can be dictated through policy within the state government purview), Social media is something they can't control the content of, so they're opting just to try to limit access to it.

But like I noted before, that's going to be a logistics nightmare in terms of enforcement as Florida isn't operating on some sort of "closed circuit internet" system like North Korea.

Yeah even as I wrote the example of facial recognition in my last post....I began thinking about ways around it.

They still haven't even figured out a remotely efficacious way to restrict minors from accessing adult content on the internet, to think they'll have any better luck with Facebook/Instagram/X/etc... is wishful thinking.

When politicians start talking about restrictions on the internet, you can tell it's people who aren't tech savvy at all thinking these things up, and they don't appear to be constrained by their ignorance on the subject.

Agree.

I wasn't thinking about a specific politician, but rather a specific set of ideologies via a party. (as there's other candidates running at varying levels of government).

Ahhh...ok.

Right now, Florida is a red stronghold. Given that we know that younger people tend to be more progressive than their parents on a variety of issues, it would seem as if Florida is fighting an uphill battle against a trajectory that hasn't changed in 100 years.

What trajectory is that?

We, as a society, retain terms like "Left & Right" to describe where present-day people reside in the present-day Overton Window. But on an issue by issue basis, the subsequent generation almost always tends to be more progressive than their predecessors (as a whole).

I'm going to have to disagree there lol.

Sorry, but you're talking about my particular field of expertise....and I know enough to know I'm not am expert.

So, in many ways, people wanting to restrict access to the internet today have some similarities to the parents/politicians who didn't want kids to be able to listen to rock music 50-60 years ago.

I agree...though I'm less sure of the effects of rock music on the development of a child.

Case in point, people would label my current positions as "center" (some would even say "center-right")... However, if you took my present day positions and applied them to 1995, I'd be left-flanking most democrats during that time.

Here's the problem with the Overton Window. It's a box that excludes the socially taboo. If you think it moves to the left constantly...you're not entirely wrong...the left is defined by change, the right by reactionary tradition. The idea that the window always moves left is plainly false...consider the death of the free-love hippie movement of the 60s-70s and the corporatism of the 80s and 90s. Was that a leftward movement?

Even the policies of the time were strongly conservative....with the coup de grace of the mental health industry and the "militarization" and dramatic increase of police to combat crime (only one of those two policy positions worked) we have a slew of right wing policy coming from both the political left and right....

I think that's the problem with the Overton Window description of policy...it's the idea that the left pushes "left wing" or "liberal" ideas and policies while the right pushes "conservative" or "right wing" policies. This simply isn't true. It's like saying the CCP is actually communist.

 

[Ana the Ist]

If you work in the IT sector, I will ask you how many of your colleagues began their IT acumen before the age of 16 fiddling around with computers, the internet, and social media? Do you think a law such as this hampers to any degree our future IT wizards and entrepreneurs?

On Friday nights from middle school on, I had a basement full of boys doing online gaming, having LAN parties, etc. By the time they were 17, they had started a web design company serving local businesses. Three of those boys are now IT or Software engineers or software engineering managers for one of the top two tech companies in the world making super high salaries, more than I have ever made in my life. Two others are running IT systems in private companies.

My role was to keep them in pizzas and periodically yell at them (as encouraged by my then-church) to shut off the computers and go get a life. Maybe go to a school football game, see a movie, date a girl. They didn't much listen. Now there are five 30-year-olds that can buy and sell me many times over. They did pretty good at getting a life. They were too active w/ computers to be out running around getting into trouble. No one ran amok.

Was that a fluke or is social media not always the great Satan it is sometimes made out to be?

That's definitely a fluke...far from the normal experience of a teen social media user today.

 

[Brihaha]

That's definitely a fluke...far from the normal experience of a teen social media user today.

I think that is correct. While there are many advantages provided by social media, it is being abused currently. It reminds me of the internet as a whole.

A few universities created an ARPANET in 1969 to allow academics from different universities to share and develop research. The U.S. Advanced Research Projects Agency Network was booming throughout the 70s. Many government agencies and universities joined the network during this time, and even some computers in foreign countries joined the network using satellite links.

Then in 1983 the ARPANET was divided into two categories, one for military use and one for civilian use. The joining of these two separate networks was dubbed the "internet". There is still great potential for the internet to offer us great advantages when used in discretion and not abused. But humanity is notorious for its flawed character and finds it difficult not to use the internet for greedy or selfish purposes. Regulating commerce is definitely challenging but not impossible.

What is ARPANET and what's its significance?

Learn about the U.S. Advanced Research Projects Agency Network (ARPANET). Explore its history and why it is considered a forerunner of the modern internet.

www.techtarget.com

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Yeah even as I wrote the example of facial recognition in my last post....I began thinking about ways around it.

That and, they people who suggest that "social media it collecting too much data about us and our kids" would have to cut against many of their own arguments if they were to embrace a "facial recognition repository".

I'm going to have to disagree there lol.

Sorry, but you're talking about my particular field of expertise....and I know enough to know I'm not am expert.


Here's the problem with the Overton Window. It's a box that excludes the socially taboo. If you think it moves to the left constantly...you're not entirely wrong...the left is defined by change, the right by reactionary tradition. The idea that the window always moves left is plainly false...consider the death of the free-love hippie movement of the 60s-70s

On which points would you disagree with the idea that subsequent generations are more progressive than previous ones?

I've heard the expression coined similar to "today's moderate views are the liberal views of 30 years ago", and there's some truth to that on many of the social issues.

You mentioned the free love hippie movement... That's actually a good example.

Many of the ideas they had (on topics ranging from drugs to sex to music) were considered "out there" for the time, but now many of those ideas are just considered "normal"

A person who likes to listen to some edgy music, smoke a joint every once in a while, and who sees no problem with a "casual hookup" arguably describes half the population at this point, there's nothing that's considered particularly "radical" about it despite it being considered "out there" during the era you describe.

Today's Billboard Top 100 music delves more into drug use, promiscuity, etc... (and in more direct terms) than anything you'd find on a Jefferson Airplane album.

I would go as far as saying "hookup culture" is much more pervasive and accepted today than it was during the hippie era.

It's not so much that the ideas of the hippie movement died, it's that many of the ideas got incorporated into the mainstream, and you can no longer tell who embraces those kinds of ideas merely be looking at their outfits anymore.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

I hear ya. But I have never bought the idea that something isn't worth doing if it is difficult. When people cop out they like to say it's because something is impossible. I once found my wedding ring in the bottom of a lake the day after I lost it. Everybody laughed and told me it was impossible. People are wrong every day. It took me ten minutes with a flashlight and a diving mask to find my wedding ring.

I only fail if I quit trying. I found one thing was impossible in my life. One thing. Adjusting the spark rods on my worn out oil furnace. They needed replacing. If it is so dang impossible to regulate the internet where our children play, then perhaps we shouldn't have any internet access for kids period. It is not impossible. Just like it is not impossible to regulate guns in America. We have simply become accustomed to giving up trying if something is difficult. I don't abide that defeatist thinking. Never have.

In this case, it's not so much a "people not trying because it's difficult", it's quite the opposite, they've been trying (and are continuing to try), and realized after the fact how difficult (to the point of being nearly impossible) it is.

Consider the fact that among law enforcement...trying to tackle cyber crime (which is engaged in by far fewer people than non-felonious activity like accessing social media), the FBI has 30 agency locations (consisting of over 6,000 agents and tech gurus + another couple thousand local/state cops who work in cyber crime task forces) who's entire job/life revolves around trying to catch and punish people engaging in criminal activity on the internet. Yet things like illegal content, copywrite infringement, ID theft, hacking, ransomware, etc... are all on the rise with no sign of that trajectory turning around.

If you had to guesstimate...what kind of resources and manpower would it take to try to monitor & enforce rules for something as ubiquitous as social media?

 

[BCP1928]

How can we educate our kids about social media use, when we can't even educate our parents about it?

I'm reminded of the Dylan line, "Because something is happening here but you don't know what it is
Do you, Mr. Jones?" When schools were closed for covid, the teachers in our county were given no notice, no special training or support, just the order to go online. The result was a catastrophe which we are still feeling the effects of and in more places than just my home county. Teaching classes on line is a whole different thing. Who knew? And not even all teachers had computers or internet at home or would know how to use them if they did.

Prohibiting cell phone use during school hours is a good thing and not a violation of free speech. Prohibiting access to social media outside of school definitely is, and the justification for it appears to be that the people who want to ban it fear that they can't be heard in that medium.

 

[Brihaha]

In this case, it's not so much a "people not trying because it's difficult", it's quite the opposite, they've been trying (and are continuing to try), and realized after the fact how difficult (to the point of being nearly impossible) it is.

Consider the fact that among law enforcement...trying to tackle cyber crime (which is engaged in by far fewer people than non-felonious activity like accessing social media), the FBI has 30 agency locations (consisting of over 6,000 agents and tech gurus + another couple thousand local/state cops who work in cyber crime task forces) who's entire job/life revolves around trying to catch and punish people engaging in criminal activity on the internet. Yet things like illegal content, copywrite infringement, ID theft, hacking, ransomware, etc... are all on the rise with no sign of that trajectory turning around.

If you had to guesstimate...what kind of resources and manpower would it take to try to monitor & enforce rules for something as ubiquitous as social media?

I have no clue. But the government has a responsibility to set guidelines for social media to obey. I think a good starting point might be reforming section 230 of our Communications Decency Act. This was passed in 1996 and congress continues to do nothing but allow immunity for social media companies. Times have changed and Americans deserve action from legislators to protect our society. Preferably before our society destroys itself. Tech companies are not going to protect people without laws being established and maintained. They are literally designed to maximize our addiction and their own profits. The pretense of social media being a positive tool to connect people has been debunked. Here's a decent article about section 230 reforms that keep getting ignored in DC.

Legislation to Reform Section 230 Reintroduced in the Senate, House

WASHINGTON – Today, U.S. Sens. Mark R. Warner (D-VA), Mazie Hirono (D-HI), Amy Klobuchar (D-MN), Tim Kaine (D-VA), and Richard Blumenthal (D-CT), along with U.S. Reps. Kathy Castor (D-FL-14) and Mike Levin (D-CA-49), reintroduced the Safeguarding Against Fraud, Exploitation, Threats, Extremism...

www.warner.senate.gov

 

[ThatRobGuy]

I have no clue. But the government has a responsibility to set guidelines for social media to obey. I think a good starting point might be reforming section 230 of our Communications Decency Act. This was passed in 1996 and congress continues to do nothing but allow immunity for social media companies. Times have changed and Americans deserve action from legislators to protect our society. Preferably before our society destroys itself. Tech companies are not going to protect people without laws being established and maintained. They are literally designed to maximize our addiction and their own profits. The pretense of social media being a positive tool to connect people has been debunked. Here's a decent article about section 230 reforms that keep getting ignored in DC.

Legislation to Reform Section 230 Reintroduced in the Senate, House

WASHINGTON – Today, U.S. Sens. Mark R. Warner (D-VA), Mazie Hirono (D-HI), Amy Klobuchar (D-MN), Tim Kaine (D-VA), and Richard Blumenthal (D-CT), along with U.S. Reps. Kathy Castor (D-FL-14) and Mike Levin (D-CA-49), reintroduced the Safeguarding Against Fraud, Exploitation, Threats, Extremism...

www.warner.senate.gov

The idea that "society will destroy itself" because of social media is over-alarmist.

And I would press you for more details on how social media being able to be used as a positive tool has been "debunked". In order for that sentiment to be debunked, it would have to be an "all or nothing" assertion in question it's debunking.

That's as abstract as saying "cars are good/bad"... Cars are a tool that can be used for good (like allowing you to get to a family members house 20 miles away much quicker than you could walk there), or can be used for bad (like illegal street racing or drunk driving). The fact that the latter exists doesn't "debunk" the fact that cars can be used for good.


While I think there's room for reforming certain aspects of section 230, the outlined proposal you linked isn't the type of meaningful reforms I would have in mind. They don't mention much about meaningful child protections, as the types of things they reference live in the realm of "Let's label things we don't like as harmful extremism, so that we can strongarm a platform into censoring certain views we don't like, and that way we can say it's in the name of protecting children". The only one listed making a legitimate argument about child protection I could see in that write up was Sen. Tim Kaine.

For the statements like the ones made by Hirono and a few of the others...
To use a comparison, they want to do to social media, what the Florida state legislature wants to do to school libraries.

My concerns with the current manifestation of 230 is more rooted in the fact that some of these entities want to enjoy the privileges of a publisher with regards to editorial discretion and being able to promulgate certain views over others, while still maintaining the benefits and protections of a platform.

For instance, we wouldn't allow AT&T to say "We don't want to be held liable if someone uses our cellular network to phone in a bomb threat. However, we still want to retain the right to make sure that only pro/anti <issue XYZ> viewpoints can be discussed and texted about over our network so that our side has an advantage in the marketplace of ideas"

...we'd call foul on that pretty quickly.

I'd rather see it live within the framework of "If it's not a criminal activity in the real world, then it shouldn't be considered a quasi-crime on the internet and therefore not subject to compelled censorship"

 

[FireDragon76]

The idea that "society will destroy itself" because of social media is over-alarmist.

And I would press you for more details on how social media being able to be used as a positive tool has been "debunked". In order for that sentiment to be debunked, it would have to be an "all or nothing" assertion in question it's debunking.

That's as abstract as saying "cars are good/bad"... Cars are a tool that can be used for good (like allowing you to get to a family members house 20 miles away much quicker than you could walk there), or can be used for bad (like illegal street racing or drunk driving). The fact that the latter exists doesn't "debunk" the fact that cars can be used for good.


While I think there's room for reforming certain aspects of section 230, the outlined proposal you linked isn't the type of meaningful reforms I would have in mind. They don't mention much about meaningful child protections, as the types of things they reference live in the realm of "Let's label things we don't like as harmful extremism, so that we can strongarm a platform into censoring certain views we don't like, and that way we can say it's in the name of protecting children". The only one listed making a legitimate argument about child protection I could see in that write up was Sen. Tim Kaine.

For the statements like the ones made by Hirono and a few of the others...
To use a comparison, they want to do to social media, what the Florida state legislature wants to do to school libraries.

My concerns with the current manifestation of 230 is more rooted in the fact that some of these entities want to enjoy the privileges of a publisher with regards to editorial discretion and being able to promulgate certain views over others, while still maintaining the benefits and protections of a platform.

For instance, we wouldn't allow AT&T to say "We don't want to be held liable if someone uses our cellular network to phone in a bomb threat. However, we still want to retain the right to make sure that only pro/anti <issue XYZ> viewpoints can be discussed and texted about over our network so that our side has an advantage in the marketplace of ideas"

...we'd call foul on that pretty quickly.

I'd rather see it live within the framework of "If it's not a criminal activity in the real world, then it shouldn't be considered a quasi-crime on the internet and therefore not subject to compelled censorship"

Have you seen the stats on teens' and young adults' mental health? Social media is contributing to unprecedented amounts of depression and suicide in the younger generation.

 

[Brihaha]

The idea that "society will destroy itself" because of social media is over-alarmist.

And I would press you for more details on how social media being able to be used as a positive tool has been "debunked". In order for that sentiment to be debunked, it would have to be an "all or nothing" assertion in question it's debunking.

That's as abstract as saying "cars are good/bad"... Cars are a tool that can be used for good (like allowing you to get to a family members house 20 miles away much quicker than you could walk there), or can be used for bad (like illegal street racing or drunk driving). The fact that the latter exists doesn't "debunk" the fact that cars can be used for good.


While I think there's room for reforming certain aspects of section 230, the outlined proposal you linked isn't the type of meaningful reforms I would have in mind. They don't mention much about meaningful child protections, as the types of things they reference live in the realm of "Let's label things we don't like as harmful extremism, so that we can strongarm a platform into censoring certain views we don't like, and that way we can say it's in the name of protecting children". The only one listed making a legitimate argument about child protection I could see in that write up was Sen. Tim Kaine.

For the statements like the ones made by Hirono and a few of the others...
To use a comparison, they want to do to social media, what the Florida state legislature wants to do to school libraries.

My concerns with the current manifestation of 230 is more rooted in the fact that some of these entities want to enjoy the privileges of a publisher with regards to editorial discretion and being able to promulgate certain views over others, while still maintaining the benefits and protections of a platform.

For instance, we wouldn't allow AT&T to say "We don't want to be held liable if someone uses our cellular network to phone in a bomb threat. However, we still want to retain the right to make sure that only pro/anti <issue XYZ> viewpoints can be discussed and texted about over our network so that our side has an advantage in the marketplace of ideas"

...we'd call foul on that pretty quickly.

I'd rather see it live within the framework of "If it's not a criminal activity in the real world, then it shouldn't be considered a quasi-crime on the internet and therefore not subject to compelled censorship"

Maybe you should run for congress lol.
I would vote for you. You have a fairly open mind and aren't afraid to communicate with others. We need much more of this effort from leaders in government. We need them to do something for us rather than gaslighting for their free ride. We can find solutions to problems but only if voters demand leaders keep trying and working together.

I said I have no clue btw. What I meant was that talking point about how social media is so beneficial for people to help them stay connected is now outweighed by the overwhelming abuse and overuse of social media. I never said it wasn't able to be used positively. Only that isn't what is happening now. And I believe it has become a net negative for American society presently. Even social media companies don't pretend they're not manipulating users to maximize their profits (not our connectivity with one another) anymore. They just come and apologize now when called in for congressional hearings. Minimize the concerns as over alarmist all you like. It is your prerogative. I'm actually surprised I'm still a member here myself. I've been on the verge of giving it up since the pandemic cooled off. It shows me the power to manipulate me, and I practice self discipline. I'll quit posting here for a week if you can lol.

 

[Brihaha]

Have you seen the stats on teens' and young adults' mental health? Social media is contributing to unprecedented amounts of depression and suicide in the younger generation.

It's true. We seem to have a growing mental health crisis in America. Research illustrates social media is affecting people's mental health and well-being. Even adults who use social media suffer these effects. I think the pandemic was like a nitrous injection to the powerful engine of social media and the repercussions thereof. This mental health crisis was given a "push-to-pass" button with the pandemic slowdown. And rules of inertia say the crisis will not slow down unless acted upon by an outside force.

Social media use linked to depression in adults

People over age 35 were mostly likely to be negatively affected by highly visual apps, such as TikTok and Snapchat.

www.nbcnews.com

 

[BCP1928]

Have you seen the stats on teens' and young adults' mental health? Social media is contributing to unprecedented amounts of depression and suicide in the younger generation.

Yes, having abandoned social media to children we now find that they are using it in harmful ways. Is our only option just to take it away from them?

 

[keith99]

It's true. We seem to have a growing mental health crisis in America. Research illustrates social media is affecting people's mental health and well-being. Even adults who use social media suffer these effects. I think the pandemic was like a nitrous injection to the powerful engine of social media and the repercussions thereof. This mental health crisis was given a "push-to-pass" button with the pandemic slowdown. And rules of inertia say the crisis will not slow down unless acted upon by an outside force.

Social media use linked to depression in adults

People over age 35 were mostly likely to be negatively affected by highly visual apps, such as TikTok and Snapchat.

www.nbcnews.com

Repeat after me. Correlation does not show causality. is

Anyone who feels cut off from human contact is apt to turn to the internet to fill that unmet need. And one would also expect that the internet is not always enough to fill that unmet need. Hardly fair to blame the internet for it.

That said it does seem to me that a sudden turn towards excessive internet use could be seen as an early warning sign of a problem. But the sign is not the cause. And treating it as the cause would tend to prevent people from looking for the real (and likely different for each case) cause of the problem.

 

[Brihaha]

Repeat after me. Correlation does not show causality. is

Anyone who feels cut off from human contact is apt to turn to the internet to fill that unmet need. And one would also expect that the internet is not always enough to fill that unmet need. Hardly fair to blame the internet for it.

That said it does seem to me that a sudden turn towards excessive internet use could be seen as an early warning sign of a problem. But the sign is not the cause. And treating it as the cause would tend to prevent people from looking for the real (and likely different for each case) cause of the problem.

I am generally speaking about social media, not the internet. All the links to research I posted are in regards to social media in particular. Research doesn't necessarily show the same issues affecting people who simply browse the internet without consuming social media. I apologize if my communication skills are not exceptional. I recognize this flaw and have been working on improving haha. And you are right in saying correlation doesn't equal causation. That is true. Though I didn't actually repeat it the way you said it. Peace

 

[Margaret3110]

Repeat after me. Correlation does not show causality. is

Anyone who feels cut off from human contact is apt to turn to the internet to fill that unmet need. And one would also expect that the internet is not always enough to fill that unmet need. Hardly fair to blame the internet for it.

That said it does seem to me that a sudden turn towards excessive internet use could be seen as an early warning sign of a problem. But the sign is not the cause. And treating it as the cause would tend to prevent people from looking for the real (and likely different for each case) cause of the problem.

I'm not against the internet or even judicious use of social media. But aside from the toxicity of certain social media spaces, there is also something very addictive about it, I think. Admittedly I haven't read much research in this area, but that is my experience and the experience of other adults I've talked to. I'm able to curb my own usage but not everyone can, even adults.

(I've also seen the effects of certain Youtube kids' channels on my son - unmistakable behavioral effects - and heard the same thing, even about the same channels, from other parents.)

 

[FireDragon76]

I'm not against the internet or even judicious use of social media. But aside from the toxicity of certain social media spaces, there is also something very addictive about it, I think. Admittedly I haven't read much research in this area, but that is my experience and the experience of other adults I've talked to. I'm able to curb my own usage but not everyone can, even adults.

(I've also seen the effects of certain Youtube kids' channels on my son - unmistakable behavioral effects - and heard the same thing, even about the same channels, from other parents.)

It's not just "seems". Companies like Facebook manipulate their algorithms to try to induce people to have more and more "screen time" on their website. In some cases using sophisticated techniques similar to neuromarketting. So yeah, there's no question that social media can be addictive, not unlike casino gambling.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Have you seen the stats on teens' and young adults' mental health? Social media is contributing to unprecedented amounts of depression and suicide in the younger generation.

I don't think the data lines up with the theory that social media is a large contributor.

It had peaked in 2018, and had been in a downward trajectory until the lockdowns happened. That caused a spike in suicide rates for a myriad of reasons we can discuss if you'd like?

When you look at the groups that had the most disproportionate amount of suicides (compared to the population as a whole), it was...
Suicide death rates in 2021 were highest among American Indian and Alaska Native (AIAN) people, males, and people who live in rural areas.

...these aren't the demographic groups that are the largest users of social media. They're some of the "least connected" (in terms of internet usage) cohorts.

Per the NIH:
Similarly, several studies have demonstrated that social media usage during the COVID-19 pandemic can be beneficial because social media serves as a constructive coping strategy through which people reduce feelings of anxiety and loneliness


But we don't have to go into the weeds that far if you don't want to...

I would start with a few simple pragmatic questions.
How is internet harassment/bullying worse than in-person harassment/bullying?
Is there anything else that's changed over the past decade or two in terms of culture, social interactions, etc... that are worth looking at? (as in, is social media being scapegoated when there are other larger culprits)

I have a few in mind (and no, it's not the issue people may think I'm implying here)