Florida bill banning kids from social media

[Bradskii]

How is internet harassment/bullying worse than in-person harassment/bullying?

Someone gets bullied in person and it's just the person doing the bullying and the one being bullied. Maybe a few others are involved. The shame and embarrassment that is felt is often directly related to the number of people who see it happening.

Do it online and everyone will see it. And perhaps join in.

 

[BPPLEE]

Someone gets bullied in person and it's just the person doing the bullying and the one being bullied. Maybe a few others are involved. The shame and embarrassment that is felt is often directly related to the number of people who see it happening.

Do it online and everyone will see it. And perhaps join in.

When you’re bullied in person and you don’t stand up for yourself, it won’t just be one person doing the bullying. Others pick up on it and you become a target .
So I don’t know if online bullying is worse but it’s just as bad.

 

[Bradskii]

When you’re bullied in person and you don’t stand up for yourself, it won’t just be one person doing the bullying. Others pick up on it and you become a target .
So I don’t know if online bullying is worse but it’s just as bad.

Let's say someone is bullied in person. Bad enough. But someone recorded it on their phone and posted it. Now it's a lot worse.

 

[BPPLEE]

Let's say someone is bullied in person. Bad enough. But someone recorded it on their phone and posted it. Now it's a lot worse.

True. Because it’s going to bring on in person ridicule and bullying. I’m glad we didn’t have cellphones when I was in the 7th grade

 

[keith99]

True. Because it’s going to bring on in person ridicule and bullying. I’m glad we didn’t have cellphones when I was in the 7th grade

that would depend a lot on what would happen. For me if someone was foolish enough to record bullying on their phone the result would likely have been very bad for all involved on the bullying end. One advantage of a small private school where the administration cared.

Sadly, today the result probably would be no action taken. Not sure what it would have been in the public schools at that time.

 

[BPPLEE]

that would depend a lot on what would happen. For me if someone was foolish enough to record bullying on their phone the result would likely have been very bad for all involved on the bullying end. One advantage of a small private school where the administration cared.

Sadly, today the result probably would be no action taken. Not sure what it would have been in the public schools at that time.

No action was ever taken until I lifted weights for two years and when it started in the 9th grade I cleaned house, and I was suspended. I was suspended several times in the 9th grade for fighting and once they said they weren’t letting me come back but my father took care of that.
When I got to high school 10th through 12th grade I never got in another fight at school. I just had to stand up for myself and they knew I would fight if I had to..

 

[FireDragon76]

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

View attachment 342247

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)

The Surgeon General of the US, Vivek Murthy, believes social media is contributing to poorer mental health in youth, and won't let his own kids be on social media. If a diverse group of politicians from different parties, as well as experts in different fields, believe it's a problem, I think it's something that should be taken seriously.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

The Surgeon General of the US, Vivek Murthy, believes social media is contributing to poorer mental health in youth, and won't let his own kids be on social media. If a diverse group of politicians from different parties, as well as experts in different fields, believe it's a problem, I think it's something that should be taken seriously.

But do they think it's a problem for the same set of reasons?

You mentioned that people in both parties believe social media has problems, but I'd suspect they're looking at it from very different viewpoints, and the mental health argument seems to be a convenient one to converge upon.

For instance, people in both political camps have had some issues pharmaceutical industry, and the "they have to much power and influence" argument is a convenient one to land on, but their underlying reasons for having issues with Pfizer are very different.

Someone gets bullied in person and it's just the person doing the bullying and the one being bullied. Maybe a few others are involved. The shame and embarrassment that is felt is often directly related to the number of people who see it happening.

Do it online and everyone will see it. And perhaps join in.

On the flip side, one simply has the ability to put down the phone or not log into facebook.

No such option exists with the forms of in-person bullying that happens in the confines of a school.



I would posit that while social media can be a contributor (technically anything can), it's worth considering if what's known as the "Fireman causation analogy" applies.

For those unfamiliar, it's the logical fallacy:
The more firemen fighting a fire, the bigger the fire is observed to be. Therefore firemen cause an increase in the size of a fire.

Possible that the reason why there's a higher level of correlation between suicidality and higher rates of social media use is because the people who would already be predisposed to such thoughts/feelings are often the types of people who would be most likely to be sitting by themselves at home? (IE: the people who would've been referred to as "loners"). In other words, is the increase in social media use the primary factor increasing the markers for suicidality? Or were those markers already there, and those are the types of people who'd be the most likely to spent a lot of time on the web because they don't have a lot of real world friends?

Keeping in mind, people theorized the same thing about "gamers" as well.

In the late 90's early 2000's, there were studies being released saying the following about "excessive gamers":
...the detection rate of suicidal ideation was 16.37%. Moreover, there was a significant positive correlation between excessive internet gaming and suicidal ideation.

Again, a very similar cohort of people in question... who were the excessive gamers? The people who didn't have a lot of real-world friends, perhaps the "loners" and "outcasts"?

Like gaming used to be, spending huge amounts of time on the web is often the "outlet" for people who already have some of these problems.


All that aside, I don't think we, as a society, have done a particularly good job preparing young people for how to cope with things like setbacks, rejection, and failure.

 

[BCP1928]

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

Whether social media use by children is a problem in itself or a symptom of a different problem, merely banning it seems like an admission of defeat. Children engage in all sorts of activities which are potentially dangerous but with training and supervision are of benefit to them. But somehow we can't take that approach to social media use for "reasons."

 

[Brihaha]

Whether social media use by children is a problem in itself or a symptom of a different problem, merely banning it seems like an admission of defeat. Children engage in all sorts of activities which are potentially dangerous but with training and supervision are of benefit to them. But somehow we can't take that approach to social media use for "reasons."

I don't necessarily see banning children from social media as an admission of defeat as much as an admission of reality. If the negative repercussions outweigh any perceived benefits of kids using social media then it seems wise to heed the data and create helpful regulations to protect our youth first. If regulations aren't enough to impact the well-being of children on social media then perhaps a ban might be in order. I'm in agreement with you I think. I don't condone banning things in general. I would like to believe we could mitigate the mental health repercussions without a complete ban on social media consumption. Supervision is key and training as well. I see lots of room for improvements in both areas.

 

[BCP1928]

I don't necessarily see banning children from social media as an admission of defeat as much as an admission of reality. If the negative repercussions outweigh any perceived benefits of kids using social media then it seems wise to heed the data and create helpful regulations to protect our youth first. If regulations aren't enough to impact the well-being of children on social media then perhaps a ban might be in order. I'm in agreement with you I think. I don't condone banning things in general. I would like to believe we could mitigate the mental health repercussions without a complete ban on social media consumption. Supervision is key and training as well. I see lots of room for improvements in both areas.

That's putting it mildly. I was astounded by the failure of teachers to deal with the nuts and bolts of remote learning during covid. The present situation with regard to social media is just as bad.

 

[Brihaha]

That's putting it mildly. I was astounded by the failure of teachers to deal with the nuts and bolts of remote learning during covid. The present situation with regard to social media is just as bad.

Yeah, I agree. The logistics were a nightmare, trying to get all students connected with the online curriculum wasn't a simple plug-n-play affair. Many kids in the hollers nearby still have dial-up, if any internet at all. I had a couple online classes as recently as 2014 that I was forced to complete with my dial-up internet. It was challenging. I don't even have wifi now. I just use the data service from my provider and it is sufficient.

 

[BCP1928]

Yeah, I agree. The logistics were a nightmare, trying to get all students connected with the online curriculum wasn't a simple plug-n-play affair. Many kids in the hollers nearby still have dial-up, if any internet at all.

Same here, but teachers, too. The public library set up a hot spot that covered their parking lot to make up for the library being closed,

I had a couple online classes as recently as 2014 that I was forced to complete with my dial-up internet. It was challenging. I don't even have wifi now. I just use the data service from my provider and it is sufficient.

Not only that, but the teaching strategies are different as well--it's not just regular classroom on Zoom. Social media can be (and is in other places) useful in such situations.

 

[FireDragon76]

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

But do they think it's a problem for the same set of reasons?

You mentioned that people in both parties believe social media has problems, but I'd suspect they're looking at it from very different viewpoints, and the mental health argument seems to be a convenient one to converge upon.

For instance, people in both political camps have had some issues pharmaceutical industry, and the "they have to much power and influence" argument is a convenient one to land on, but their underlying reasons for having issues with Pfizer are very different.


On the flip side, one simply has the ability to put down the phone or not log into facebook.

No such option exists with the forms of in-person bullying that happens in the confines of a school.



I would posit that while social media can be a contributor (technically anything can), it's worth considering if what's known as the "Fireman causation analogy" applies.

For those unfamiliar, it's the logical fallacy:
The more firemen fighting a fire, the bigger the fire is observed to be. Therefore firemen cause an increase in the size of a fire.

Possible that the reason why there's a higher level of correlation between suicidality and higher rates of social media use is because the people who would already be predisposed to such thoughts/feelings are often the types of people who would be most likely to be sitting by themselves at home? (IE: the people who would've been referred to as "loners"). In other words, is the increase in social media use the primary factor increasing the markers for suicidality? Or were those markers already there, and those are the types of people who'd be the most likely to spent a lot of time on the web because they don't have a lot of real world friends?

Keeping in mind, people theorized the same thing about "gamers" as well.

In the late 90's early 2000's, there were studies being released saying the following about "excessive gamers":
...the detection rate of suicidal ideation was 16.37%. Moreover, there was a significant positive correlation between excessive internet gaming and suicidal ideation.

Again, a very similar cohort of people in question... who were the excessive gamers? The people who didn't have a lot of real-world friends, perhaps the "loners" and "outcasts"?

Like gaming used to be, spending huge amounts of time on the web is often the "outlet" for people who already have some of these problems.


All that aside, I don't think we, as a society, have done a particularly good job preparing young people for how to cope with things like setbacks, rejection, and failure.

a week if you can lol.

This isn't a political partisan issue. For once, both many Democrats and Republican leaders, as well as public health experts, are in agreement.

 

[Brihaha]

This isn't a political partisan issue. For once, both many Democrats and Republican leaders, as well as public health experts, are in agreement.

I agree wholeheartedly. And I will still genuinely vote for ThatRobGuy if he ran for office. He has demonstrated his willingness to sacrifice his time and thoughts on many issues. I didn't include or exclude any party in that statement. Maybe your reply wasn't meant for me.

 

[keith99]

No action was ever taken until I lifted weights for two years and when it started in the 9th grade I cleaned house, and I was suspended. I was suspended several times in the 9th grade for fighting and once they said they weren’t letting me come back but my father took care of that.
When I got to high school 10th through 12th grade I never got in another fight at school. I just had to stand up for myself and they knew I would fight if I had to..

For me the problem vanished when I grew. It also coincided with most of the problem guys not coming back (again an advantage of a private school, certain sorts of problems simply are not permitted to enroll next year).

I was a target in large part because I was academically inclined. That is far from unusual. In that I see a significant difference between live and online bullying. Online the nerds can fight back and win, big time. Links to evidence could just show up in an administrator's email or other actions.

Historically there was also a huge difference between the sexes. Guys were far more apt to be beaten up, actual significant physical damage. The girls were just as brutal, but usually in a verbal, not a physical sense.

 

[Brihaha]

Historically there was also a huge difference between the sexes. Guys were far more apt to be beaten up, actual significant physical damage. The girls were just as brutal, but usually in a verbal, not a physical sense.

Yes, that seems very true historically.
Your post led me to contemplate, having raised a couple daughters in Virginia. Then it led me to genuine laughter as I see how times have changed. The past three physical alterations I have seen in person have been women fighting each other. Only one of the fights involved my daughters too lol. One was at the dirt track Saturday nite racing. The other was at the Walmart. Women around here aren't afraid to throw down that's for sure.

 

[BPPLEE]

For me the problem vanished when I grew. It also coincided with most of the problem guys not coming back (again an advantage of a private school, certain sorts of problems simply are not permitted to enroll next year).

I was a target in large part because I was academically inclined. That is far from unusual. In that I see a significant difference between live and online bullying. Online the nerds can fight back and win, big time. Links to evidence could just show up in an administrator's email or other actions.

Historically there was also a huge difference between the sexes. Guys were far more apt to be beaten up, actual significant physical damage. The girls were just as brutal, but usually in a verbal, not a physical sense.

There was a racial aspect to my bullying, although that was not the only factor. I was in Selma, Alabama, a little white kid in a majority black school In 1976.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

This isn't a political partisan issue. For once, both many Democrats and Republican leaders, as well as public health experts, are in agreement.

That was a similar case with the previous examples I provided (for what that's worth).

When it was "music is causing kids to act in these illogical ways", and when it was "there's a correlation between excessive video gaming and suicidality"... those were both scenarios where there was something of a "united front" among the two parties. (when it was music, it was Al Gore and fellow senate democrats up there with the republicans grilling Dee Snider about whether or not Twisted Sisters We're not gonna take it song was encouraging violence and rebellious behavior, when the topic was video games it was senators Joe Lieberman and Kohl right there with the republicans grilling people on the topic of video games)

In each case, they had their own "special experts" willing to give their "expert" testimony (I use the quotes around the word expert because psychology isn't a hard science, it's a soft science where there's all kinds of room for subjectivity and countervailing theories)


In each case (and I feel the same is true with social media), it was just the latest iteration "How do we explain this undesirable and unexpected behavior our kids are exhibiting?, we need to tie it to a "thing" that can be the target of our ire, and it has to be a "thing" we're not responsible for"


As I noted before, while social media can maybe marginally exacerbate existing issues to some degree, I think the real fault lies with the fact that society as a whole haven't done a particularly great job preparing the younger generations for things in the realm of adversity, setbacks, criticism, rejection, and failure.



For lack of a better comparison/analogy...

Consider the difference between how an 14 year old - with 3 siblings, and who's parents have more modest means - reacts to not getting what they want, compared to an 14 year old only child - who's never had to share and never been told no - being told "no, you can't have that" for the first time.

The former is more likely to take it in stride and not make a big deal out of it... the latter is going to stomp their feet, lock themselves in their room, and yell at their parents and say "you hate me!, why are you ruining my life?!?!"

Over the last 15 years we, as a society, have been raising a lot more of the latter, but instead of material possessions, it's been more in the realm of emotional coddling.


If this was really a case where social media was solely to blame (or even mostly to blame), why would the impact on suicidality be generational?

 

[FireDragon76]

That was a similar case with the previous examples I provided (for what that's worth).

When it was "music is causing kids to act in these illogical ways", and when it was "there's a correlation between excessive video gaming and suicidality"... those were both scenarios where there was something of a "united front" among the two parties. (when it was music, it was Al Gore and fellow senate democrats up there with the republicans grilling Dee Snider about whether or not Twisted Sisters We're not gonna take it song was encouraging violence and rebellious behavior, when the topic was video games it was senators Joe Lieberman and Kohl right there with the republicans grilling people on the topic of video games)

In each case, they had their own "special experts" willing to give their "expert" testimony (I use the quotes around the word expert because psychology isn't a hard science, it's a soft science where there's all kinds of room for subjectivity and countervailing theories)


In each case (and I feel the same is true with social media), it was just the latest iteration "How do we explain this undesirable and unexpected behavior our kids are exhibiting?, we need to tie it to a "thing" that can be the target of our ire, and it has to be a "thing" we're not responsible for"


As I noted before, while social media can maybe marginally exacerbate existing issues to some degree, I think the real fault lies with the fact that society as a whole haven't done a particularly great job preparing the younger generations for things in the realm of adversity, setbacks, criticism, rejection, and failure.



For lack of a better comparison/analogy...

Consider the difference between how an 14 year old - with 3 siblings, and who's parents have more modest means - reacts to not getting what they want, compared to an 14 year old only child - who's never had to share and never been told no - being told "no, you can't have that" for the first time.

The former is more likely to take it in stride and not make a big deal out of it... the latter is going to stomp their feet, lock themselves in their room, and yell at their parents and say "you hate me!, why are you ruining my life?!?!"

Over the last 15 years we, as a society, have been raising a lot more of the latter, but instead of material possessions, it's been more in the realm of emotional coddling.


If this was really a case where social media was solely to blame (or even mostly to blame), why would the impact on suicidality be generational?

The difference is that there was very little real expertise behind the moral panics about video games or music. This isn't the case with concerns about social media impacting mental health.