Social media can be a ‘profound risk’ to youth, surgeon general warns

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/05/23/well/family/social-media-mental-health-surgeon-general.html

by 2OEH8eoCRo0 • 3 years ago

286 489 3 years ago

True, but think about how lucrative it can be for a VC. We as a society obviously back VCs over the youth and the future of humanity.

CatWChainsaw2• 3 years ago

You're downvoted because you made the intrepid entrepreneurs here squirm with guilt.

ChicagoBoy117• 3 years ago

I work at a fancy private school and partially am have hosted numerous events for parents on kids and social media.

We have been banging on this key for easily the past 8 years, with varying levels of emphasis. The response from parents has also been universally consistent: A lot of nodding, and, ultimately, very little action. There has always been a small but consistent group of parents who stand firmly on their decision to delay giving their child broad access to social media until later, and the vast, vast majority who can't be bothered to. I haven't noticed the scale tip in any direction in all these years.

KaoruAoiShiho• 3 years ago

What reasonable action could be taken on the parent side?

I feel like apps should be regulated to for example, only show up to 20 videos max on tiktok per day to prevent doom scrolling. I don't think preventing kids from accessing social media entirely is viable or reasonable.

youreincorrect3• 3 years ago

Don't give your kid a smartphone or laptop without only whitelisting certain sites. If they somehow get a device without permission, it gets donated.

gjsman-10002• 3 years ago

I think in the future, we should look into device-level age verification. You scan your Driver's License on your iPhone once; and after that, your iPhone tells the website that you are 16 and over without providing any other information unless the user expressly grants it. This solution would not make everyone happy, but politics is all about tradeoffs.

By keeping everything on the device-level, we would hopefully reduce the need for third-parties, ISP-level filtering, or providing too much information. The downside is that for open-source phones, in order for the system to be secure, there would likely need to be a similar Age ID check at checkout for any device that can bypass said filter. This would not be the first time that the US Government strongly "encouraged" device manufacturers to build-in rating system equipment (remember V-Chip?).

And as for "some kids might bypass it," I don't really care. Speed Limits are easily and frequently bypassed, but that doesn't mean it would be safe to get rid of them.

ianmcgowan• 3 years ago

Not sure if it's reasonable, but a very simple answer is to get your kid a feature phone, if the intent is to be able to stay in touch/emergency contact (we let our kids bike to middle school and it was nice to be in touch). We didn't get them smart phones until high school.

Though if my kids are any indication, it's still 50/50 - one is on tiktok/snapchat/insta constantly, and the other could care less.

davemp• 3 years ago

I don't think preventing kids from accessing social media entirely is viable or reasonable.

One solution to this is to have a public computer in the house that the children can use. As they age and become more responsible you can give them more computing privacy. In the mean time you can kind of get an idea if they're developing bad habits and address it.

bart_spoon13• 3 years ago

Children have been around for 7 billion years. Only the last 20 years have children grown up with social media for even part of their childhood. Do you truly believe it has now become that critical to the childhood experience? Especially given avalanche of research demonstrating its harm?

CharlesW• 3 years ago

There has always been a small but consistent group of parents who stand firmly on their decision to delay giving their child broad access to social media until later, and the vast, vast majority who can't be bothered to.

For the latter group, do you feel like it's always willful ignorance? For example, some parents think you're talking about TikTok, when (as I'm sure you know) it often starts with Roblox/Minecraft chat and associated Discord servers.

What tools have you found useful to help parents understand and manage this?

bart_spoon13• 3 years ago

Every time this topic comes up, many of the responses here are about how it is pointless to try and impose limits on social media (or anything for that matter) on children, as they will inevitably circumvent them or something like that. To me it comes off like mental gymnastics to excuse a failure to actually parent.

ChicagoBoy117• 3 years ago

I don't think it's ignorance as much as "well, that won't be my child." Also, its a much more appealing alternative when it is the path of least resistance. I suspect, too, we don't really have a sophisticated enough conversation on the distributions of the outcomes. From my experience working with teens, I think it is probably the case that the media outcome of having broad access to these is strictly worse than not, but probably of a small magnitude, but that there is a long tail of negative outcomes that no one believes will be their child.

ChicagoBoy117• 3 years ago

I do a thing where I get a chance to meet with lots of smaller group of kids, and I let them ask anything tech anonymously. it is absolutely eye opening, and it becomes very clear that adolescence for a lot of them is much, much harder to navigate because of these tools they've been given. What I do sometimes is just share with parents some of the questions I get from the kids, and that has been the only slightly effective thing I've seen. To me the biggest issue is that there's a lot of "not my kid" sort of sentiment, and I think letting the kids' voices speak through to the parents sometimes helps hit home to them that they may not have a full grasp of what these tools introduce to their child's life, and that yes, their child could also be one of the ones who struggles with it more accutely.

crmd• 3 years ago

For example, some parents think you're talking about TikTok, when (as I'm sure you know) it often starts with Roblox/Minecraft chat and associated Discord servers.

US psychologist Jonathan Haidt has said there is an interesting distinction in impact between cooperative online play, e.g. gaming, and using social media, e.g. posting on instagram and reading others posts. He says the data shows the former can benefit a child's social development while the latter is absolutely toxic.

bendango• 3 years ago

It’s not social media though; it’s the shit show they see through it.

That’s not going anywhere.

Exploitation of young agency to prop up value stores and ideals of elders is what awaits them away from the screen.

Setting themselves aside to clean up the toxic mess of dying generations awaits them.

This may come as a shock but I don’t feel an obligation to your existence specifically.

Look at the public dismiss public healthcare and demand the kids work just as we did; we censored TV coddling their sensibilities and office jobs to protect the hallucinated value of private corporations.

I feel as much obligation to the “American Civic Life” hallucination as I do a more traditional religion. ACL has just taken hold of the biology religion did; causing people to hallucinate I owe them recognizing some spoken meme like “this person has high net worth.”

That’s thought policing. Western society is a police state and it spends billions on hypernormalized messaging to insure it stays that way.

Not one person on this forum is an obligation to me. You’re all hallucinating authority.

Just like the parents you’re complaining about, you’re going to ignore the idea you have real obligation to yourself and society owes you nothing.

Vain coddled primate; do it my way! … No. You’re not a divine mandate. Grow that potato.

dundercoder4• 3 years ago

I've worked in tech for 20+ years and I have 4 young kids. We allow our teenager use of a locked down smartphone, with a clearly explained zero expectation of privacy. We don't allow any social media on the phone itself. YouTube and other sites can be used under supervision for agreed on lengths of time.

Once or twice a week my wife or I will go through their text messages with them and ask questions about anything that seems off.

It is a LOT of work. But so far, it has paid off. The more responsible the usage, the more freedom we give. When bad patterns start surfacing, we rein it in.

IMO parents are reluctant to intervene because they either don't know where to start, or struggle with how much work it is.

zachturn• 3 years ago

Once or twice a week my wife or I will go through their text messages with them and ask questions about anything that seems off.
IMO parents are reluctant to intervene because they either don't know where to start, or struggle with how much work it is.

There are also parents who disagree with this ideology and would find this an invasion of their child's privacy. I'd caution against the thinking "we find this valuable and if people don't do it it's because they aren't willing to put as much work in as we do"

iamacyborg• 3 years ago

I can understand being this careful with young children's usage of a device but giving teenagers zero privacy (to the extent of going through their personal messages) seems wild to me.

grvdrm4• 3 years ago

I'm not going to comment on the specifics of your process. There isn't always a right or wrong to handle this stuff.

Your comment and the parent point to the theme that matters to me most: do you care to understand/show interest in what your kids are doing. Forget about social media - just think about TV. You can park your kid in front of the TV and forget about them, converse with them as they watch, or something in between. Your kids also need quiet/down time as well.

Again, not to say I'm right, but I try not to litigate what is happening so much, and instead I try to just be an active participant in whatever my kids are doing. The counter where you restrict or limit or challenge doesn't always work out better in the end.

Tade03• 3 years ago

Personally I wouldn't implement such a policy purely because it's against my values.

People generally value their privacy. How are children supposed to learn the same if their's is not respected?

trillic2• 3 years ago

As a young adult who was recently a teenager, I can't help but feel concerned about the potential dangers of having no expectation of privacy from our parents, especially when it comes to reading through our text messages.

While I understand the intention behind it, this practice can easily lead to conflicts and strained relationships.

Teenagers are at a stage in their lives where they are trying to establish their independence and develop a sense of self. By invading their privacy, parents risk undermining their trust and creating an atmosphere of constant surveillance. This not only hampers the natural process of growing up but also sends a message that their thoughts and personal space are not respected.

system16• 3 years ago

This is just anecdotal but I remember when I was growing up there were always a few kids in school who had extremely restrictive parents like this (strictly controlled their TV, phone, time with friends, searched their rooms, etc.)

On the surface, it seemed like it was effective and they had model kids. But in every case I can remember it resulted in the kids just becoming much better at finding ways to rebel (in increasingly escalating ways) that the parents couldn't catch, until they got a knock at the door from the police, or their kid was pregnant, or overdosed, etc.

pgwhalen• 3 years ago

Once or twice a week my wife or I will go through their text messages with them and ask questions about anything that seems off.
When bad patterns start surfacing, we rein it in.

Can you elaborate on what sorts of things you'd ask about, or what bad patterns are? I'm not a parent but if I were I think I'd have a hard time drawing the line in the right place.

norir• 3 years ago

I feel pretty strongly based on my own (distant past) experiences as a young person that children need spaces where they have privacy from their parents. I think of the child who for whatever reason doesn't entirely feel like they fit in with their family and the internet is an outlet where they can explore the side of themselves that they don't feel comfortable sharing. When you strip someone's privacy and autonomy, you inhibit their ability to authentically be themselves. Now of course there is a balance and any parent does have the right to set boundaries, but I think it's important to consider the cost. My mother set some arbitrary boundaries not entirely unlike the ones you've described, but in a different era. While I respect that she was well intentioned, she caused more harm and resentment and, as others have pointed out, probably pushed me towards worse behavior out of her watchful eyes. In other words, she couldn't actually shelter me but she was able to engender resentment and acting out in response to her well-intentioned desire to protect me that ultimately hurt our relationship. I'm not at all saying that that dynamic exists in your family and I'm sure there is lots of nuance that a HN comment can't express, but I have concerns with people blindly applying these types of rules and boundaries on their children.

nvarsj4• 3 years ago

I know you mean well. But I strongly urge you to reconsider your parenting here.

You should not be going through your teenager's text messages... that is absolutely insane.

My parents were kind of similar and I had a very negative experience growing up as a result. I still remember my mom throwing out all my NiN CDs I had bought after she read the lyrics. And all my DnD material because Satan was controlling my brain through it.

As a parent you should be teaching your child to be independent and learn how to make the right choices themselves. Micro managing every aspect of their lives is the absolute wrong approach.

s5300• 3 years ago

> Once or twice a week my wife or I will go through their text messages with them and ask questions about anything that seems off.

Holy crap.

Maybe you’re aware, but things like this are commonly cited reasons by young adults as to why they’ve never again spoken to their parents after they were able to escape them, sometimes even voluntarily becoming homeless to get away.

thegreenswede• 3 years ago

You're either going to have your kids resent you or stunt the maturation of their independence (the whole point of the teenage phase). You think you're doing the right thing but you're going to most likely create hyper dependent young adults.

basisword• 3 years ago

It feels to me like smoking. A generation was there at the start of social media, got addicted and now can’t quit. Their kids see them doing it and they do the same. Eventually they’ll realise the negative side of it and they’ll try to stop their kids from getting in to it (but won’t quit themselves).

ChicagoBoy117• 3 years ago

I suspect the analogy between this kind of media consumption and smoking will prove to be far more analogous than we'd like to admit.

meghan_rain2• 3 years ago

did you notice any advantages of the kids that had delayed exposure to social media? ie smarter, better focus, better motivation, better emotional iq?

it would be HUGE news if this were the case, very curious about your reply

ChicagoBoy117• 3 years ago

Anecdotally, yes. We have some students who are very vocal about how they perceived having a more structured early use of social media once they get to nearing the end of high-school. Having said that, I'll caution that this is hardly any sort of statistical evidence, as its that students who suffered because of it (because of not being ostracized, not part of the cool kids who have phone, etc.) didn't feel bothered to come forward in my work.

The one VERY CLEAR correlation that I see, though, is that families who are EXTREMELY intentional about this fare far better. More than the minutiae of what age they did or didn't give phones, which apps to allow or not, etc., the families that I have seen have lots of success are families who have dedicated time for these conversations and have made them a habit in their family. The ones who I have seen struggle have been of the "set it and forget it" mentality, even the ones who try to just "install an app" that will just do the parenting for them.

jrochkind14• 3 years ago

Does the school allow cell phones in school? If so, why?

Relying on parents to somehow prevent their kids from doing what all their peers are doing, I'm not surprised this is a fight parents choose not to have, or don't know how to win, or don't have the energy for.

Can the school "be bothered" to try to do something at the school level, that will effect the entire peer group, instead of hoping that parents will find a way to swim against the stream? There might be other ways than simply prohibiting phones. Or maybe the school "can't be bothered" to try?

yamazakiwi4• 3 years ago

Faraday classrooms

ChicagoBoy117• 3 years ago

We don't until the kids get to high-school. But you'd be hardpressed to notice this: right before they step on campus, or right after dismissal, they all come out. But during the day, they are, in fact, hardly seen.

EatingWithForks• 3 years ago

I argue social media is a profound risk to anyone. It's an entire industry that's made to exploit every insecurity and vulnerability within a human psyche. Nervous about vaccines? Sure, you can go to your local doctor, but in the meantime you ask your fellow parents on Facebook and suddenly someone tells you that not only do these vaccines have the potential to fuck up your child for life, that doctors are totally in denial about it and no one in your friend group has ever had to deal with measles but one or two probably claim to have a vaccine-injured child, so do you really want to risk it?

This happens over and over again for anything. Vaccines is just one known example. I'm also talking about gay people. People who have sex before marriage. Immigrants. People with suspiciously dark skin tone. Body image. etc.

june_twenty• 3 years ago

The internet has opened up the world so we don't just need to trust our local doctor, mayor, school principal, parish priest. That's a great and empowering thing.

stainablesteel• 3 years ago

how astute

laristine• 3 years ago

https://archive.is/WZB2y

dathinab13• 3 years ago

It also can be a 'profound life safer' to youth people which live has been saved by the internet warn.

It also helps a lot with democracy as it's much harder for autocratic states (or governments aspiring to become such) to censor and mute the news about their bad deeds.

The main problem I'm seeing is not "social media" but how exactly it is implemented, often stuffed full of dark patterns designed to lead to addictive behavior and nearly always with no consequence to people which try to use it for scams (targeting young people) harassment and similar.

IMHO we need laws to ban "dark patterns" and "engineered addiction" as well as a system to handle and reduce harassment and other abuse. That alone might make enough difference to make any further steps unnecessary. But to be safe early (and reoccurring) education about social media, social media hygiene, and media manipulation would be excellent additions. Just not seeing most governments doing the later point, as it probably would mean them not getting elected again in the future.

Another "problem" is that the internet in general allow young people to relatively early see how messed up the world is and at the same time how the people in power often double down on it to gain more power then to fix it. This can lead to a feeling of helplessness and despair young people preferably should not be exposed to. At the same time denying them access to the truth doesn't seem right either. In the end despair and helplessness are like poison, it is what drives people to suicide and it is also what often is a major factor for weather or not a "bad situation" becomes a trauma or not.

Snoozle• 3 years ago

I see a lot of this argument when social media is brought up. A lot of people generally agree with the idea that there are a lot more supportive environments available on the web than in a traditional small town with narrow ideals. I would argue though that the statistics do not bear this truth out: if having these communities and support groups are so necessary, then why is suicide and mental health worse now than they were prior to the internet?

floren• 3 years ago

I'm starting to question that idea too. It seems like, just as often, these supportive environments on the web like to spiral down into an attitude of "ONLY this group supports and likes you; the rest of the world is hostile to you. Literal Nazis lurk outside your door ready to murder you. Better just keep posting online, and be sure to warn any new members about the Nazis outside their doors."

dathinab13• 3 years ago

worse now than they were prior to the internet?

a lot of overlapping factors

like being able to realize how messed up the world is, or how bad your own situation and future chances are can have a huge negative impact for a child which doesn't really have has much power (or at least it seems so for the child) to change anything until it's too late

at the same time while there are a lot of support structures in the internet and I have meet people which likely wouldn't be alive today without that there are also many bad places and people in the internet

and the way TockTock (and similar but lesser degree YouTube) work can easily lead to a situation where people can intentionally target young people, most times without any consequences or risk for themself

additionally there are factors unrelated to the internet but more related to the fact that "the west" moved from a economical boom time to a sequence of one down turn after another with few good long term outlooks

For example when I grew up with the feelings that I can make mistakes, especially in my youth, and have chances to recover. Even if I had messed up to a point of not geting a school degree the outlook was still one where I could recover from it if I put effort in.

But when I speak with kits today they often say they get the feeling they aren't allowed to do any mistakes, they have no second and third chances, no time to experiment, and hardly any chances to recover. They have the feeling that even if they don't mess up in the internet they might be punished for small mistakes they did in their youth years later.

This puts a _lot_ of pressure on them.

Then their is how poisons the climate change debate is for children, on one hand you have the people which just don't take it serious at all, but even a small child can relatively easily research that that is pretty much nonsense. But on the other side you often have people which go into extremes like "humans will die out", "it's already nearly to late", "if we don't act now we are all domed". Which is also somewhat nonsensical as while climate change will most likely make the quality of live for humans in general way way worse the chance for direct extinction is limited (sadly not non-existing due to hard to estimate chain effect, and many especially cost cities and even some flat countries will most likely not survive if we look at it realistically). That is depressing, but that isn't what makes the debate poisonous. What makes it poisonous is that you get told you can change it by "being a better human and not doing this or that". Except that this is pretty much a lie. For one especially if you are less wealthy you often don't have a realistic choice in many cases. For the other a lot of problem areas for climate pollution are not in the reach of what some normal person can effect through their buying decisions, even if most do so. But telling someone "they" can change it while it pretty obvious doesn't seem to work and looks pretty hopless is _extreamly_ poisonous to the mental state of a person if they believe it and care about the outcome, especially if they are young and inexperienced.

So even more pressure, perceived dark future and hopelessness.

Then us potentially heading into another cold war or WW3 probably isn't helping either.

Sometimes not knowing can be bliss.

But even without access to a phone can a child still grow up in a innocent world today?

andrewmcwatters2• 3 years ago

I get it, I agree with it, but I also grew up with unfettered access to the Internet during a period of time when the World Wide Web was growing and maturing and you saw a lot of stuff you shouldn’t have as a kid.

It seems like extreme helicoptering to restrict your children from things like this that are in the world and it’s an easy way out. Hey! All of a sudden you don’t have to parent. Some software can do it for you.

I’d prefer to teach my children right from wrong instead. Not shelter them from it.

It’s super weird.

svachalek• 3 years ago

Me too. But when it was growing and maturing it was a much nicer place. Now it's full on rotten.

SV_BubbleTime3• 3 years ago

I think the difference is we found that on our own. Maybe you showed a friend or two. Maybe you were the one to introduce your friends to ICQ.

But those things are nothing like the hyper connected hyper expectations of being constantly online and being part of “current thing”.

I get your goals, but I’m not sure as parents we can compete with an absolutely all encompassing relationship with a screen, where the best in the brightest in the world are working constantly to make sure your kids sees x, believes y, repeats z.

There is a strong chance that the only way to win is to not play.

yifanl• 3 years ago

When we were growing up, people weren't getting paid to get us to click on lemonparty.

bart_spoon13• 3 years ago

You could be suffering from survivorship bias

andrewmcwatters2• 3 years ago

Probably. Certainly worth acknowledging. I realize the Internet now isn’t what it was then. Perhaps my approach is naive. I’m sure I’m missing nuance.

drak0n1c• 3 years ago

The internet that required users to purposefully sit down at a functional desktop PC and bear with significant latency to interact with it is quite different from the internet defined everyone with a touchscreen in their pocket. Yes, there were crazies and degenerates on the old internet, but there at least was a modicum of thoughtfulness and sense in much of the user generated content.

Because of the functional difference, using parental controls on the most addicting apps and sites during younger ages starts to make sense. Getting your child to conform to your value system is not the important part, what's arguably more damaging is the negative effects of emotional and mental addiction to social media and its trends, along with addiction to touchscreen usage itself - kids raised with touchscreens too early often lack the patience or self-control to read books, indulge their own imagination, or even watch a movie.

I too was allowed free reign on the internet in the early 00's as a child and teenager. I saw the shock sites, and browsed /b/ with schoolmates. However, the computer I used was a shared computer in the living room, not my own room. And I still fell into game addiction that affected my academic performance and mood until parental intervention. It's worth looking out for.

photochemsyn• 3 years ago

Advertising can also be a 'profound risk' to youth, leading to the same issues that social media causes - insecurity, low self esteem, addiction to unhealthy products - and social media, business-wise is mostly just a platform that connects advertisers to their target audience.

I doubt the surgeon general would directly call this out in the USA, since we're one of the few countries that allows pharmaceutical corporations to market directly to the public (and social media seems to be a big part of their advertising budget).

knaik947• 3 years ago

I think we are on the tail end of a generation that grew up without internet trying to govern generations that did. The single question that helps me decide whether someone is equipped to address the underlying problem, is asking if they understand the differences between good and bad social media. The difference between good and bad social media is based on the target audience and how potential dark patterns implemented or addressed.

As someone that grew up with social media and the internet from the moment I could read, I struggle to understand how social connections worked before it. Broadband become mainstream in just the last ~20 years. Social media that quantifies someone's popularity absolutely affects teenagers' mental health. But social media also means support groups on reddit and places like HN.

The surgeon general wants to explore and understand the way different social media affects mental health. But the way this issue is presented by NYT, and in general, categorizes all social media as the same. This framing is going to make younger generations ignore these "warnings" as out of touch, because it is. Similar to how my parents call every game console or video game, "playing the Nintendo". These overgeneralized discussions make most people dig in to their already held beliefs. This also gives overbearing parents fuel to invade the privacy of their children, which harms children's mental health, and leads to trust issues, more than social media ever will.

dabluecaboose• 3 years ago

I quibble with the notion that there is "good" and "bad" social media, at least as you implicitly defined.

Facebook was amazing when it first came out because it allowed people to keep in touch easier and share photos with each other. It also is arguably the progenitor of "bad" social media with tallied likes/reactions and algorithmic skinner boxing of posts.

Unfortunately, it boils down more to usage than whether or not a site is a "good/bad" social media. And even a good one can turn bad if it gets too popular and the culture dies (reddit)

I don't really know how to feel about it. To me, it feels like smartphones. I recognize the utility but at the same time know that the manufacturers/developers are intentionally designing psychologically addictive patterns to keep me engaged, and am inclined to utilize it less as a result. Which in turn limits the utility I get out of them!

andrei_says_• 3 years ago

We live in an environment of dark patterns and sophisticated engines designed for addiction.

Our attention - and our kids attention is being extracted and resold.

The algorithm-ization of social media feeds to promote addictive behaviors optimized to maximize addiction triggers for the personality of every single individual + the maximization of paid content (sometimes ads, sometimes secretly promoted) has long replaced the feeds serving the interest of the user.

The enshittification of social media is in place and the platforms are basically competing to squeeze the last few remaining drops of our attention, already having collected and monetized most of that resource.

RandallBrown• 3 years ago

Good and bad social media doesn't have to be rigidly defined along brand/product lines.

Facebook can be an extremely helpful and useful tool for keeping in touch with your friends and something that is addictive and harmful to your mental health.

bonadrag• 3 years ago

But social media also means support groups on reddit and places like HN.

As a father of 3 young children, my view is that social media like reddit, tumblr, discord, facebook, instagram, twitter should be out of bounds for anybody younger than 16. I would really like them avoid until their very late teens, early 20s but I know this will be impossible. The risks far outweigh the benefits, perhaps a social feed monitored by a parent is fine, but never unsupervised, the damage is real and kids can be pulled into niche subjects that may form their personality in their teen years with no sight to the long term damages. Call me square I don't care.

HN and other forums with a somewhat narrow interest/focus are fine by me, in fact I would somewhat encourage them to read and participate in these activities. People here tend to be more genuine about their interest and they tend to keep it narrow--just look at how little traction political discourse gets on this site, it's refreshing, people on this site are intrinsically focused at the task at hand.

knaik947• 3 years ago

Social media is a method of communication at its core. Excluding kids from social media now also excludes them from social interactions. Being excluded is also damaging, and we no longer live in a world where not being on social media is practical.[1] It's better to teach them how to identify problematic content from a very young age and guide them. Blocking access will not accompish the goal you are hoping to accomplish. I think the demographics of who falls and shares misinformation and fake news demonstrates my perspective.

"It is possible that an entire cohort of Americans, now in their 60s and beyond, lacks the level of digital media literacy necessary to reliably determine the trustworthiness of news encountered online." [2]

https://www.unicef.org/press-releases/done-right-internet-us...

https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.aau4586

mvdtnz• 3 years ago

As someone that grew up with social media and the internet from the moment I could read, I struggle to understand how social connections worked before it.

Do you not see how this is a problem?

wonderwonder13• 3 years ago

Social media is poison for young minds. My oldest is going into middle school. I'll get him a phone but he will not be allowed to use social media. This includes YouTube. There is no need for it. We already track his iPad use and will do the same with the phone. He does sports, boxing and math tutoring, if he needs more social interaction he can hang out with friends. There is literally nothing on social media that I think a middle school kid needs exposure to in order to become a successful, good, and well rounded person.

knaik947• 3 years ago

You have the ability to help guide them through social media by helping them understand good and bad. I understand that you might have different beliefs, but social media plays a very critical role in young kids communicating with each other. Covid catalyzed them embracing social media to stay in touch. Youtube also shouldn't be considered social media.

wonderwonder13• 3 years ago

I appreciate your viewpoint but strongly disagree. Children today suffer vastly increasing rates of depression and suicide. I link most of it to social media. My kids talk to their friends just as kids have done for generations. If social media is playing any sort of a critical role in a kids life it's because the parents are not doing it.

YouTube is absolutely social media no different than Instagram or TikTok. Even something like Mr. beast who is generally a good guy can warp and expose kids to a suddenly transexual and borderline pedophile character who abandons his wife and child. Anyone can post anything. My goal is to limit what my kids are exposed to in much the same way parents did before social media. It just means I have to be involved which is something we should all strive to do.

nineplay6• 3 years ago

I have lost patience with articles about kids and teens and "social media" that make no attempt to define what social media is. It is no wonder parents won't seriously - particularly when the follow up advice is "don't give your kids phones" as though it's all or nothing.

Could we please get a list of social media kids are using and their relative levels of harm? If it's mostly Instagram then say Instagram and parents can uninstall that app. Is it Facebook? (I didn't think kids were using Facebook) Is it TikTok? (I'm not sure I'd classify TikTok as social media) Twitter? Reddit? Roblox? Shared google docs? Group texts? Hacker news?

If we can figure this out then we can have a productive talk about kids and phones and pros and cons. Do I have to point out that phones have more uses than social media? Can kids call and text? Can they access Wikipedia? Can they play Minecraft? Can they take photos? Saying "no phones" is throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

It shouldn't be hard to have intelligent, thoughtful discussions on kids and the internet. For some reason, no one ever does.

im3w1l2• 3 years ago

The reason they don't say is because they don't know.

nineplay6• 3 years ago

How can they claim that this is all backed up by research if they don't know what social media is? What is the link they are finding?

It doesn't feel like science. It feels like hand-waving, correlation, and anecdote.

standardUser5• 3 years ago

It's true. This meta-analysis was posted a while back on HN with this key quote:

"In social media research, we focus on “how much social media did a person consume?” and we plan our experiments accordingly... Most don’t even distinguish between platforms, as if Instagram, Facebook, Snapchat, and TikTok are just different kinds of liquor. "

Like I wrote in a comment back then, it's like blaming "computers" or "the internet". Vague to the point of useless.

https://jonathanhaidt.substack.com/p/why-some-researchers-th...

jjulius• 3 years ago

I have lost patience with articles about kids and teens and "social media" that make no attempt to define what social media is. It is no wonder parents won't seriously - particularly when the follow up advice is "don't give your kids phones" as though it's all or nothing.

This article is about social media, and doesn't suggest an all-or-nothing approach of not giving kids phones. Hell, a ctrl+f for "phone" brings up 0 results.

Could we please get a list of social media kids are using and their relative levels of harm? If it's mostly Instagram then say Instagram and parents can uninstall that app. Is it Facebook? (I didn't think kids were using Facebook) Is it TikTok? (I'm not sure I'd classify TikTok as social media) Twitter? Reddit? Roblox? Shared google docs? Group texts? Hacker news?

If you go to the NYT article and follow the link to the 19-page report in the first article, you can find this[1] in the second citation. This appears to suggest that, at a minimum, social media includes YouTube, Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, Snapchat, Twitch, WhatsApp, Reddit, and Tumblr. These are, to my mind, obvious choices, but maybe it's not so obvious to others?

Your comment is the first time I've ever heard anyone mention group texts and shared Google docs being considered "social media", and it's often mentioned and acknowledged on this very forum that HN can be considered social media.

Do I have to point out that phones have more uses than social media?

No, because contrary to you saying that "saying 'no phones' is throwing the baby out with the bathwater", nobody has actually said that here. A ctrl+f for "phone" in this thread currently brings up 12 results, 9 (well, 10 now that I've edited this sentence in) of which are in my comment and yours, and the other three aren't about banning phones outright, in fact two of them are about taking the more nuanced approach you've suggested.

It shouldn't be hard to have intelligent, thoughtful discussions on kids and the internet. For some reason, no one ever does.

It's not hard if we're not being so reactionary.

[1]https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2022/08/10/teens-social...

nineplay6• 3 years ago

You have some fair points. Some of my criticism is not about the linked article but about the inevitable follow up discussions that usually have a heavy dose of "why are these lousy parents giving kids phones anyway?".

Am I in the minority of not thinking of TikTok and YouTube as social media? Perhaps it's only in my head. I mention shared google docs because I've actually seen bullying behavior in shared google docs - it's an easy way for kids to talk to each other with their school laptops outside of any other supervision.

Ancapistani2• 3 years ago

This appears to suggest that, at a minimum, social media includes YouTube, Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, Snapchat, Twitch, WhatsApp, Reddit, and Tumblr. These are, to my mind, obvious choices, but maybe it's not so obvious to others?

Like everything "parenting", I feel like it's a bit more subtle/situational than a simple list.

We have two daughters, the oldest of which is 14. We recently bought her a cheap pay-as-you-go Android phone to take with her when she's out at events and such. She's been great about taking it, but at the moment it's sitting on a shelf in her room with a dead battery and no service plan. She just isn't interested in "having" a phone.

On the other hand, she has an 11" 5G/LTE iPad Pro. Both her mother and grew up with unfettered Internet access from a relatively early age (~13, in 1997) and agree that it was a huge net benefit to us. That's the overall approach we've taken, with one modification: unlike _our_ parents, we're savvy to both the tech and social aspects.

They aren't allowed to have social media accounts tied to their names without them first coming to us and talking about it. They both have YouTube accounts (and post very frequently, with more followers than their parents), but they're under aliases and they don't show their faces. If they really wanted a Facebook account or something - they won't, because that's "for old people", but for the sake of argument - we'd figure out a way to satisfy both of us.

I require that they keep all of their passwords in Bitwarden, and I have access to the vault where they're stored. This serves multiple purposes: security, ease of access across devices, and access for us in an emergency. We let them know that we wouldn't access their accounts without them present except in an emergency, and they trust us to follow through with that.

Instead, "social monitoring" is done when we sit down, about once a week, and let them talk about what's going on in their digital lives.

Finally, we have fairly comprehensive logging set up on all of our devices and access points. I have a list of the top 5k or so "problematic" sites - including, obviously, porn - and a cron job that scans our logs for those hostnames. If something comes up that concerns me, I let my wife know and speak to our kids directly and privately. The theory here is if they're old enough to sit down and talk to their parents about a given piece of content, they're old enough to consume it if they choose to.

We've only felt the need to have those conversations a handful of times, and while sometimes awkward, it has had the effect we intended: they're spending their (prodigious) time online reading, watching mostly instructional YouTube videos, and creating content.

... and yes, before HN points this out, I'm well aware that there is no such thing as a system that cannot be compromised or bypassed. I'm not even trying that hard: the logs are written to a USB drive connected to our home router, and the router's admin password is written right there on a label. If they figure out how to SSH into the router, modify the logs, and cover their tracks... well, I don't think there is much that would make me happier to be honest. I'll take "hacker mentality" over "has never seen a porn video" every day of the week.

sghiassy• 3 years ago

Interesting that you wouldn't classify TikTok as social media. How would you characterize it?

nineplay6• 3 years ago

I suppose I'd call it a video sharing platform. "Social media", to me, has an implication of media that is shared within a social circle. Facebook is social media because the intention is to share information with friends and family. No one is posting on FB hoping to have it go viral and make a pile of cash off it.

TikToc is content creators sharing their videos with the whole world.

i2cmaster• 3 years ago

Obviously people are abusing non-free software and centralized web services both to spread propaganda and to separate parents from their kids. People not involved in the industry have an extremely difficult time articulating what they experience there though.

I think it's wrong to be upset at them.

Saying "no phones" is throwing the baby out with the bath water

I completely disagree. Outside of the top maybe tenth percentile of focused/competent people smartphones are a net negative. They're practically designed to be. I don't own one for that reason.

sidcool• 3 years ago

There are so many contradicting studies from experts that I have lost interest. Too much of anything is bad. But how much is OK for kids? I see very young kids exposed to content, philosophy and culture that's not native to their parents.

13years• 3 years ago

It is a profound risk to everyone in different ways.

It's very nature induces abnormal behavior.

I recently wrote an article of some perspectives on the topic. Focusing on how the lack of privacy is a key factor.

https://open.substack.com/pub/dakara/p/uniform-thought-machi...

gnicholas3• 3 years ago

Has anyone had any luck getting schools/districts to publicize this type of info? It seems like there's a coordination problem, where X% of parents would not want kinds to be on social media for a long time, Y% of parents who want their kids on social media, and Z% of parents who would prefer no social media but don't care that much.

If everyone knew how large the X+Z percentage was, there could be a large enough group that most kids wouldn't be on social media, and they wouldn't feel bad about it or miss out on most social activities.

But as it stands, Y% have their kids on social media, Z% go along for the ride so they don't miss out, and then X% have a tough choice to make.

It would be great if schools had presentations for parents (and kids) that talk about these potential harms, and encouraged families to make decisions in the long-term interest of their kids. This could have the side benefit (for the school) of reducing smartphone usage, which distracts kids during school.

I'm thinking of talking to my kids' school about this, since they spend so much time/money on all sorts of presentations/trainings already, and often for stuff that would be less impactful. I'd even encourage them to tell students that parents use phones too much, and they can feel free to bug us to have no-phone time. That would get the kids invested in the concept, and make it less likely they fall prey to smartphone addiction.

ChipSkylark• 3 years ago

I'm picturing energetic and socially conscious "hip" 20-somethings doing a country-wide elementary school tour where the whole school gathers in an auditorium to watch them rap about the dangers of social media.

If it works for cigarettes...

tayo42• 3 years ago

Thinking about myself and what I remember. What worked for cigarettes was, graphic demonstrations of health issues along with lots of real proof. The government and society made it inconvenient to use it everywhere.

I don't they held back, I remember getting shown rotting lungs, the effects of lung cancer, holes in the throat, yellow teeth. Lots of death statistics.

nvarsj4• 3 years ago

This is your brain on Social Media. sizzle

zackmorris• 3 years ago

D.A.R.E. to Keep Kids Off Social Media

Wages stagnated since 1980. Rents doubling every decade. Dead-end service jobs. Unpayable student loans. Social Security payments going to IOUs instead of retirements. Lying politicians and chief corporate officers making bank on the backs of the working poor. 30% credit card interest. Delaying childbirth to make rent until it's too late. GMO and processed foods poisoning giving an obese population autoimmune disease. Republicans gerrymandering elections. Democrats supporting neoliberal colonialism. A burning natural world set to end between 2050 and 2100.

The list of threats to anyone younger than 50 is so infinite and growing so rapidly that social media is the new drugs in the endless war on youth culture. You know, the one that inconveniently lists the problems and solutions only to be told over and over again to sacrifice their dreams and get serious and study and get a job, that it's all in their heads.

ajsnigrutin2• 3 years ago

Yep, this is how you get violent revolutions... people look at the average rent and an average paycheck/pension, realize they literally have nothing left to lose, and once they realize who's to blame, things (sometimes literally) explode.

Luckily (/s) we have social media to shift blame off of politicians to other groups of people, to fight eachother instead of the ones who profit from all this.

adversaryIdiot• 3 years ago

Luckily we have social media to divide and conqueror us. and more media and junk food to keep us in our homes. Only thing in question now is the home.

KoftaBob4• 3 years ago

once they realize who's to blame

You mean the NIMBYs in their metro area that try to slow down new housing production as much as possible?

boondoggle16• 3 years ago

Who does profit from all this? I know that all of the mainstream media corporations (NBC, Comcast, Disney, etc) are all owned by a small number of parent corps, with a small group of trusted leadership that hires each other.

What about other industries? Do leaders and founders of all these influential industries have anything in common? Tech, banking, media, the industries that influence our youth?

soulofmischief2• 3 years ago

Unfortunately, most of our population in the US at least is not fit for sustained insurgence. I also doubt their willingness/capability to be trained. Most of the action will probably follow a power law. It may very well be that the most motivated folk will be those with something to lose.

wetmore2• 3 years ago

I'm with you that these are major issues, and ones that impact my mental health as someone in my 30s, but I sort of doubt these problems are the main contributors to the mental health crises among young people. Social media and phones have had a huge negative impact on the amount of time young people spend together in person and have amplified the stakes of one's social life. Maybe I'm forgetting what it was like to be young but I'd guess these impacts are a lot more relevant to the mental health of children and teenagers.

WarOnPrivacy8• 3 years ago

Social media and phones have had a huge negative impact on the amount of time young people spend together in person and have amplified the stakes of one's social life

Social media and phones are what youth had left, after adults systemically wiped out every inch of their development environment.

I'm an early genx; the last generation to grow up free of constant supervision. I went everywhere by myself and learned countless critical self-sufficiency and social skills - skill building that was utterly and thoroughly denied to my own kids.

That is, my kids risked their parents being charged if they were capably on their own. My kids had nowhere to go if they tried to be independent. Were my kids to risk having some ambition, they also risked adult-sized punishments for kid-sized transgressions.

We couldn't have designed a more stunting experience, short of tossing kids in forced-labor gulags.

deevolution• 3 years ago

Social media is just the medium for which doom/despair is transmitted. Removing social media might slow down the transmission speed, but folks will eventually arrive to the same conclusions mentioned in OPs comment.

mtalantikite• 3 years ago

I'd maybe put the doubling of rent every decade up there at the top as the thing that causes the most mental health harm. I'm in my late 30s and remember moving to NYC in 2007, when seeing two bedroom apartments in Brooklyn for $1200/month seemed expensive but doable. Now I hear of young people paying that for a room in a shared apartment, or end up moving back in with their parents. Add to that other costs of existing plus their student loans and it's got to make young people feel on the edge all the time.

Not to say that social media isn't bad for mental health, it certainly is. But I've been out in NYC and seen swarms of young people at bars and clubs, it's not like they're not socializing with each other.

jl62• 3 years ago

A burning natural world set to end between 2050 and 2100

What exactly are you thinking will constitute the end of the world?

arbitrary_name2• 3 years ago

The ocean no longer is able to provide calories for the billion+ who friend in it as their primary source.

Other food sources are impacted by drought, supply chain disruptions, flooding etc.

Large scale migration triggers political instability, revolutions.

Raw materials and inputs fundamental to our way of life become more expensive to obtain due to supply chain disruptions, driving living costs up and creating political tension.

While i don't think the world or civilization to end, i think a lot of people discount how much line can get worse and more uncomfortable for billions, especially in the wealthier parts of the world.

This is major first world problems but: good prices are higher due to droughts and then flooding. Housing prices have risen in part due to reduction in housing inventory and supply due to flooding, wildfires and increasing fire insurance costs.

My recreation options are limited due to so many parks being closed to due to landslides, storm damage, fire damage or fire risk.

Taxes are increasing in my area due to the increasing cost of maintaining infrastructure due to both flooding and fire damage, storm surges and other sources.

In California, one of the wealthiest places in the world, climate change is already gently and subtly eroding our quality of life.

Things can get much much worse in the next few decades, and likely will.

KoftaBob4• 3 years ago

Wages stagnated since 1980

Not sure how you're defining "stagnated", but Real Weekly Wages have continuously gone up since 1980: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LES1252881600Q

Rents doubling every decade.

Nope, the average increase per decade is 42%, not 100%: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/CUUR0000SEHA

30% credit card interest

Nope, the latest rate is ~20%, and that only comes into play if you don't pay your credit card bill in full, and I'm not about to get into the topic of financial responsibility: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/TERMCBCCALLNS

Delaying childbirth to make rent until it's too late.

"In 1960, the group of women with the largest share of first births was 20 to 24 years old (43%).

In 2018, first births among women occurred most often between ages 25 to 29 (29%)."

25 to 29 is nowhere near "too late".

A burning natural world set to end between 2050 and 2100.

I don't even know where to begin with this one

ceejayoz2• 3 years ago

Not sure how you're defining "stagnated", but Real Weekly Wages have continuously gone up since 1980: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LES1252881600Q

Wages definitely stagnated in 1980 (your chart shows $319 for both 1980 and 1998, for example, and it's visibly pretty flat for those two decades), and they've continued to be decoupled from productivity and corporate profits. "Trickle-down" turned out to be mostly pee.

https://www.epi.org/blog/growing-inequalities-reflecting-gro...

germyj• 3 years ago

On stagnated wages they're likely thinking of WTF Happened in 1971 (https://wtfhappenedin1971.com/) where productivity/wage growth detached from GDP.

On credit card interest, per Forbes this week (https://www.forbes.com/advisor/credit-cards/average-credit-c...) the average APR is 24%, indicating that there are rates above 24%, potentially well above.

On childbirth, don't forget the tails as the distribution shifts. 25-29 isn't too late, but as the average age increases you're raising the risk of various issues and you're going to have more people in "too late" side of the distribution. Add in egg-freezing and IVF turning out to not have such a success rate as predicted, you can wind up with a lot of disappointment.

OP is being rather... histrionic, but it doesn't do to overcorrect, either.

somenameforme• 3 years ago

I'm quite sympathetic to this view, since I think people tend to exaggerate how bad things are, to say the least. But on the other hand, a lot of these things are quite indicative that something's really wrong. Wages were already at a local min in 1980 and had been plummeting especially since 1971 [1].

But even in the "good" picture, you're looking at real wages increasing by about 10% over 44 years, while real rent prices increased more than 400% over the same time frame. To say nothing of dramatic cost increases in education, healthcare, and the introduction of countless new defacto necessary costs like internet and electronic devices. This is all obviously a complete catastrophe. In some ways it's kind of surprising that society has been getting along as "well" as it has, all things considered.

I suppose it's largely because we've managed to mythologize the past where somebody could do things like graduate college debt free on a part time job, and even have enough tucked away to get started on a down payment for their first house. That past simply no longer sounds even possible, let alone real. Yet it was.

[1] https://wtfhappenedin1971.com/

moneycantbuy• 3 years ago

i agree except for the GMO part. modern diet is pretty ill though. some of your points are slightly exaggerated but not by much. as someone now in their 40’s, affordable housing has been the biggest one. worked my whole life but still had to live with housemates and couldn’t save much if any money. finally got a higher paying job at a pharma company in the bay area a few years ago, still can’t afford to buy a house or have kids.

Calvin02• 3 years ago

You forgot music videos and magazines!!

I remember a time when music videos and magazines were the leading causes of teen mental health decline.

Also, what is social media? My nieces and nephews spend more time on messaging than they do on TT or IG.

Let’s say we get rid of TT and IG, do we think that all the issues surrounding YA mental health will go away?

thatfrenchguy• 3 years ago

A burning natural world set to end between 2050 and 2100

Eh, climate change is a really big problem but you can't go around saying "the world is set to end between 2050 and 2100", it's obviously untrue and demotivating.

runarberg2• 3 years ago

Most recent IPCC report stated that we are very likely to hit 1.5° in the next five years. If all our current policies hold, and we don’t continue to increase our annual emissions we will likely be looking at 2.7° - 3.2° at the end of this century. At 3° the oceans die.

I think it is safe to say that the world as we know it is very likely coming to an end between 2050 and 2100. We will be living in a far more inhospitable planet in 2050.

gloryjulio• 3 years ago

I agree that its a ridiculous description. But as a mentophor, I can imagine at that time the life is like burning in despair

Aunche• 3 years ago

If you look at literally any point in history, you're going to see what seems like "infinite problems". Even if you're 100% right that we face an unprecedented number of problems, this take still doesn't make any sense. You acknowledge that we have a lot of "real problems" that can occur simultaneously, but when it comes to social media, that is somehow a fake problem? The solutions proposed by controlling social media are very mild such as prohibiting phone use in class, and they aren't very popular. Yet somehow this is akin to the War on Drugs, which has killed hundreds of thousands of people in several countries?

lbrito• 3 years ago

Slightly off-topic, but coming from a country where credit card interest rates are around 15% _per month_, I was amused to find people complaining about 22% _per year_ interests in North America.

gnicholas3• 3 years ago

I imagine rates are determined largely by the general state of the economy (if you currently have a job, how likely are you to lose it?), the amount of data the creditor can gather on potential debtors (what are your wages and current debts?), and the credit card company's ability to efficiently collect on debts.

I wouldn't be surprised if the collections process is easier in the US than in other countries. The economy is not great right now, but credit card companies can also limit your credit to make sure that you don't borrow more than they expect to be able to collect later. And they can see what your existing debts and monthly payments look like, which allows them to de-risk their lending.

armchairhacker• 3 years ago

Okok but I think kids just use social media to connect with each other, because it’s easier and more common than meeting up in-person, especially today.

Plenty of other things to distract yourself from existential dread (video games, movies, streams and shows, actual drugs) and learn about that stuff (the news).

ericmcer• 3 years ago

People aren’t generally affected by issues that are out of sight like those you list. A classmate saying something critical about an teenagers appearance will be 100x more impactful than the rainforests imminent disappearance.

dr_orpheus• 3 years ago

Mark Zuckerburg's quote: "a squirrel dying in your front yard may be more relevant to your interests right now than people dying in Africa"

Loquebantur2• 3 years ago

They aren't generally not affected either?

People care about things relevant to subjects they have an emotional connection to already. This system of inference is different between individuals of course.

The relevant question should be, why do so many people care about ultimately meaningless stuff? That's what GP was on about in my opinion, people telling children authoritatively what is or isn't important while being obviously wrong about it.

anigbrowl9• 3 years ago

Things like pollution, food price inflation, and craptastic government policies are far from out of sight because they impact families directly, even if teens don't fully appreciate all the ramifications.

somethingreen• 3 years ago

The idea that any of these would normally worry an average young teen is hilarious to me. I grew up during cold war, USSR collapse, multiple wars in the region. At no point was I (or any of my peers to my knowledge) gravely concerned for our future. Because none of us yet had any idea what our normal future is supposed to look like.

The only way these mild horrors get into children heads is, again, through social media.

demindiro• 3 years ago

We have a hot war right now on the border of the EU that likely will escalate further.

I'm sure China has plans too.

anigbrowl9• 3 years ago

I grew up in approximately the same period and grim possibilities, along with local economic problems to a lesser extent, were certainly a concern for me and my peers. Other risks existed as well, kids in my neighborhood school died of drug overdoses, accidents, and medical problems. Others had to deal with poverty, abusive parents, or a family member behind bars. Back then middle aged people blamed television your any despondency among youth. I imagine previous generations blamed radio and newspapers.

The only way these mild horrors get into children heads is, again, through social media.

School shootings are such a regular feature of American life that every school holds safety drills for the risk. I don't think all children get to enjoy the same sort of carefree bubble that you did. Media certainly amplifies the awareness of problems but many kids are far better informed than many adults admit, or want to be themselves.

Loquebantur2• 3 years ago

Things can kill your fast or slow, right now or in the distant future. You end up dead regardless, so you need to avoid them all.

Also, you seem to conflate locally and personally with globally and universally relevant.

Threats are diverse and not restricted to being simplistic. Proper handling necessitates serious effort on all levels and certainly isn't done by relying on tradition.

worik• 3 years ago

Not me

I was terrified my entire adolescence by the prospect of nuclear war

HaZeust3• 3 years ago

I've seen a lot of assertions that the rhetoric and agenda online or on social media exist from those places in isolation, and "don't reflect the real world". The problem with this line of thinking is that the majority of humans with access to the internet in 2023 use the information they acquire online as a means to build their real-world beliefs and values. This idea that social media/online doesn't reflect the real world isn't true; it has made our present-day beliefs of the real-world, and has seeped out of the monitor and into our individual psyches and collective consciousness.

birdyrooster• 3 years ago

Your comment is a case study on pathological dismissiveness.

poulsbohemian2• 3 years ago

I think you are underestimating kids. Does the average child / teen have the same level of detailed understanding of the world as an informed adult? Likely not. But - I can tell you that on the elementary playground during the 2016 election, my kids and their peers were very aware of the threat to the kids whose parents had come (legally or otherwise) from Mexico as it pertained to the two candidates and parties. Heck, when I was that age back in the 80s, there was a group of kids very angry at my dad because he pushed through zoning / permitting regulations that their construction industry parents didn't like. Imagine as a 9 year old having to defend urban growth policy! And that was in a poor, shitty subburb.

soulofmischief2• 3 years ago

Your lack of imagination is your own; Kids today have a better understanding of the economic lifecycle in which they're being forced to participate.

goodpoint2• 3 years ago

The only way these mild horrors get into children heads is, again, through social media.

I never heard a better justification for blissful ignorance and no, it's not a good thing.

still_grokking• 3 years ago

There are no issues, sure. At least as long everybody practices the three apes method…

atleastoptimal• 3 years ago

In the past, it was a crisis of the present, with hope for the future.

Now, it's a tranquil present, with no hope for the future.

While the latter is materially better, psychologically it's far more damning.

Every single successful society survived on a story, or myth, of a better future. The current Western world is the only society that has fully abandoned that notion, and we are seeing the consequences. Every single political struggle, artificial conflict and strife is downstream of this fundamental disruption in this core societal promise.

skeaker2• 3 years ago

It's really strange that your idea of a solution to the problems that you tacitly admit exist is to just not tell people about them.

r00fus2• 3 years ago

All of those things impact family stability and happiness. That impacts kids' lives quite immensely.

Social media isn't the cure, but it sure as hell didn't cause all those other things.

kar5pt• 3 years ago

That doesn't really sound comparable unless you actually grew up in the USSR (your comment is kind of ambiguous as to whether you're from the area or just grew up in the US during that time period).

The soviet era had the risk of nuclear, but there was still a good chance that would never happen. By contrast, most of the things OP mentioned are already happening.

jhbadger• 3 years ago

But the USSR collapse was (at least outside Russia) a great thing. Eastern Europe was no longer colonized by Russia and in the West, the fear of nuclear war was gone.

autoexec• 3 years ago

I grew up during cold war, USSR collapse, multiple wars in the region. At no point was I (or any of my peers to my knowledge) gravely concerned for our future.

Kids in our day got it through regular media. The cold war had a big influence on music at the time and shows like The Day After (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Day_After) were on TV. I was very aware that we could be nuked at any moment, and later, that we were destroying the environment. We had the rest of the world's evils pushed on us by Very Special Episodes and After School Specials. I had plenty of other mundane concerns to worry about too, but concern for our future was always there in the background.

Kids today get it much worse since the message is that it's already too late and we're basically doomed.

CalRobert2• 3 years ago

I'm 40 and was worried about climate change even as an 8-10 year old.

BeetleB• 3 years ago

Now can you also list the ways things are better than in 1980?

Perspective, and context are relevant. People in countries that have always been worse off than the US is today are not as depressed.[1]

[1] Well, not until they all got cable TV and social media, that is.

badpun6• 3 years ago

You could have a similar or worse list of grievances about every period of human history.

nullc• 3 years ago

Have you considered licensing these lyrics to Billy Joel for his next hit?

listenallyall2• 3 years ago

There's a certain kind of privilege embodied in your post, not sure the name, that allows one to think that he/she has had it worse than all prior generations. Ignorance of history for sure, but it's combined with a closed-minded and selfish attitude as well.

CalRobert2• 3 years ago

I don't have to tell you things are bad. Everybody knows things are bad. It's a depression. Everybody's out of work or scared of losing their job. The dollar buys a nickel's worth. Banks are going bust. Shopkeepers keep a gun under the counter. Punks are running wild in the street and there's nobody anywhere who seems to know what to do, and there's no end to it. We know the air is unfit to breathe and our food is unfit to eat, and we sit watching our TVs while some local newscaster tells us that today we had fifteen homicides and sixty-three violent crimes, as if that's the way it's supposed to be.

We know things are bad - worse than bad. They're crazy. It's like everything everywhere is going crazy, so we don't go out anymore. We sit in the house, and slowly the world we are living in is getting smaller, and all we say is: 'Please, at least leave us alone in our living rooms. Let me have my toaster and my TV and my steel-belted radials and I won't say anything. Just leave us alone.'

molteanu• 3 years ago

I have to re-watch that movie.

est31• 3 years ago

The report is more about school age children while your points, while relevant, are more about late teenagers / young adults.

Better reasons for why school age children are so addicted to social media are more car centric suburbian developments and the general attitude shift to not let children play outside without supervision. This isn't for cultural reasons only, it's also caused by the increased homeless population and the drug epidemic: in many places, streets are indeed more dangerous than they used to be 40 years ago.

29athrowaway2• 3 years ago

And there is an explanation for all that, partner. It's called: carrying capacity.

Nobody wants to see it but it is there.

Things are hard because they need to be hard, otherwise we would multiply out of control and devour the planet in no time.

If you give every person a house, lifetime supply of food, free education, guaranteed job, a vehicle, you would see the population going to 30 billion in 20 years. Then we would all perish.

noelsusman• 3 years ago

The fact that you and many, many others believe all of these things to be 100% true is exactly the problem. Social media has poisoned your brain.

winternett• 3 years ago

The worst part is that social media is dangled as if it is an obtainable successful career for most as creators.. But everyone often has to work years before even making a dime FOR FREE.

People invest heavily in rapidly depreciating startup equipment like ring lights, PCs, Cameras, Microphones, only to find out that every site is rigged like a casino, and few people truly win (most get predatory contract offers), and now they're actually charging all creators for visibility while shrinking natural post reach, and inventing and fostering scams of all kinds (Crypto/NFTs) while child exploitation is rampant.

Social media is pretty much essential to growing a business now, but the problem is that it's under siege by opportunists that give little care about the toxic wide-scale emotional, mental, and financial manipulation that they now perpetuate and promote for profit. I don't know how or if it's ever going to be reigned in.

BigCryo• 3 years ago

our elites are desperate to maintain the Monopoly they have had for many years on the ability to insert ideas into the minds of young people, which they have done for decades through the educational curriculum... now that social media is so ubiquitous and older people are getting onto it, there is now another stream of ideas being fed into Young minds.. and the elites have nothing to do with it, which tears them up.. the elites understand something that normal people do not, which is that young people are shaped and molded by the ideas put in their heads.. the the child is the father of the adult, as the saying goes, and Proverbs 22:6 tells us, if you show a child the way that he is to go, when he is old he will not depart from it..

so that is how the elites transformed society, and divided society among the different factions and thus maintained control... by changing society via educational propaganda fed into Young minds... the elites have long had a monopoly on shaping society by shaping Young minds.. the elites fear that ordinary people will soon wake up to the power and potential in social media for older people to feed their ideas into the minds of younger people and thereby put a stop to The divided society the elites have created

StrangeATractor2• 3 years ago

A lot of comments in this thread remind of cigarette companies dismissing health concerns with tobacco.

In my circle of friends and family I've seen the majority of them go from being people you could talk to and spend time with to people that just stare at their phones constantly, I've heard others say the same about their circles. Parents let Youtube raise their kids because they don't want to get their eyes off the screen themselves. You could be on a luxury vacation on a yacht in the Mediterranean but they never get off their damn phones. There's no way that's healthy.

That's not even getting into how social media shapes your mind at a young age. I have two teachers in the family and they both say that kids have become borderline retarded since around 2010.

The multi billion dollar attention economy wants to dodge responsibility by holding an unrealistic standard of evidence for their externalities but use your common sense. Humanity has never had anything that constantly demands your attention, are we just supposed to pretend it will have no effect on our mental health?

mtlmtlmtlmtl2• 3 years ago

I've noticed that some of the funniest people I know have started using Tiktok in the last couple years, and their sense of humour has completely vanished. Now they just send me these dumb short video clips that are more cringe than funny, and it seems like they can't even make a good joke in person anymore.

gsk22• 3 years ago

It's hard not to notice that this is essentially the same argument people made against TV ("the boob tube").

People just stare at the TV constantly. Parents let the TV raise their kids. People watch TV even on vacation. TV has made kids stupid.

And it probably goes back further -- can you believe the parents letting radio raise their kids? Don't get me started on the children who spend all day staring at words in a book. I have a teacher friend who says cuneiform carvings have made kids stupid since around 1000 BC.

Now obviously overconsumption of any media can be unhealthy, but there seems to be a lot of fear-mongering over social media that isn't well-justified. It's just "old man yells at clouds" for the digital age. Lots of broad assertions and very little evidence to back them up.

mtlmtlmtlmtl2• 3 years ago

Here's a different take on this perspective. It seems to be demonstrably fine that most people occasionally drink some alcohol. But obviously, if everyone was drunk all the time, society would collapse.

Similarly, we could instead say that yeah, maybe TV had some negative effects, but there's no TV outside, at work, at school, at least not usually. And at least for TV, you turn on a channel and watch it. Also there's some pretty good stuff on TV. How many scientists were inspired watching Star Trek as a kid? But I'm sure there were kids who did watch too much TV, and it really did have a negative impact on them. It's just that eventually norms were established yadda yadda that mitigated the severity of it on a societal scale.

With smart phones and social media, maybe we're scaling up the sorts of negative effects that people were worried about with TV, to where it really can have some disturbing effects even on a societal scale. And maybe we really should be worried that we're effectively conditioning children to have shorter attention spans due to the emergent properties of a smartphone with multiple different social media apps firing off notifications with very short form content. And the rate of adoption has been so huge, that if it is the case, we might already be fucked pretty soon.

beerpls2• 3 years ago

This comment is full of unawareness

Television WAS terrible. I have many older relatives who are basically zombies whenever one is on. It has crippled their ability to critically think, it indoctrinates them, and leads to numerous health complications

Just because a population has been adequately addicted doesn’t mean the addiction isn’t a problem

Now fast forward to today and realize that these modern digital drugs can be many many times more potent than your TV of yesteryear

“Lots of broad assertions and little evidence to back them up”

Friend I think you need to put down your screen and take a long hard look at what the world is and where it’s heading

StrangeATractor2• 3 years ago

Smartphones are incomparable with other forms of media. You don't have a TV within 3 feet of you 24 hours a day that you can pull out at any time. A TV doesn't ding to get your attention. TV channels aren't individually tailored for you to suck in your attention and hold it for as long as possible. There are fundamental limitations to TV which do not apply to smartphones. It's the same with radio.

I grew up with TV, the number of people spending almost all their free time on a phone completely dwarfs any TV consumption I've ever seen.

dredmorbius• 3 years ago

Edward R. Murrow, "Wires and Lights in a Box" (1958):

One of the basic troubles with radio and television news is that both instruments have grown up as an incompatible combination of show business, advertising and news. Each of the three is a rather bizarre and, at times, demanding profession. And when you get all three under one roof, the dust never settles. The top management of the networks with a few notable exceptions, has been trained in advertising, research, sales or show business. But by the nature of the corporate structure, they also make the final and crucial decisions having to do with news and public affairs. Frequently they have neither the time nor the competence to do this. ... this nation is now in competition with malignant forces of evil who are using every instrument at their command to empty the minds of their subjects and fill those minds with slogans, determination and faith in the future. If we go on as we are, we are protecting the mind of the American public from any real contact with the menacing world that squeezes in upon us. We are engaged in a great experiment to discover whether a free public opinion can devise and direct methods of managing the affairs of the nation.

<https://www.rtdna.org/murrows-famous-wires-and-lights-in-a-b...>

Newton N. Minow, "Television and the Public Interest" (1964):

Your industry possesses the most powerful voice in America. It has an inescapable duty to make that voice ring with intelligence and with leadership. In a few years this exciting industry has grown from a novelty to an instrument of overwhelming impact on the American people. It should be making ready for the kind of leadership that newspapers and magazines assumed years ago, to make our people aware of their world. ...

When television is good, nothing—not the theater, not the magazines or newspapers—nothing is better. But when television is bad, nothing is worse. I invite you to sit down in front of your television set when your station goes on the air and stay there without a book, magazine, newspaper, profit-and-loss sheet or rating book to distract you—and keep your eyes glued to that set until the station signs off. I can assure you that you will observe a vast wasteland.

You will see a procession of game shows, violence, audience participation shows, formula comedies about totally unbelievable families, blood and thunder, mayhem, violence, sadism, murder, Western badmen, Western good men, private eyes, gangsters, more violence and cartoons. And, endlessly, commercials—many screaming, cajoling and offending. And most of all, boredom. True, you will see a few things you will enjoy. But they will be very, very few. And if you think I exaggerate, try it.

<https://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?a...>

Television technology is inherently antidemocratic. Because of its cost, the limited kind of infomration it can disseminate, the way it transforms the people who use it, and the fact that a few speak while millions absorb, television is suitable for use only by the most powerful corporate interests in the country. They inevitably use it to redesign human minds into a channeled, artificial, commercial form, that nicely fits the artificial environment. Television freewayizes, suburbanizes and commoditizes human beings, who are then easier to control. Meanwhile, those who control television consolidate their power.

Jerry Mander, Four Arguments for the Elimination of Television, Quill Press, 1978, p. 349.

You can look at phenomena such as radicalisation, "QAnon orphans" (or Fox orphans, or right-wing talk-radio orphans), at instances in which new and emerging media played a significant role in radicalising populations (radio in Nazi Germany, under Father Coughlan in the United States, in the Rwandan genocide), the printing press's role in the Reformation and 30 Years' War (see especially Elizabeth Eisenstein's The Printing Press as an Agent of Change, 1979: <https://archive.org/details/printingpressas01eise> and vol. 2 <https://archive.org/details/printingpressas02eise>, also McLuhan, Robert W. McChesney's work generally, Chomskey & Herman, Neal Postman, Socrates, Ecclesiates, and many, many more. (I've compiled a bibliography, which could use some updating, here: <https://old.reddit.com/r/dredmorbius/comments/7k7l4m/media_a...>).

Keep in mind that a major factor which makes pre-transition views seem so quaint is that we are living in the world those transitions created. Our world is normal to us, and generally comfortable, acceptable, or at least known, and the concerns seem ... antique. Because in fact they are, and the world from which they were voiced was destroyed and no longer exists.

oefrha• 3 years ago

While I don’t like staring at my phone constantly while I’m around others, have you considered the possibility that people simply enjoy whatever are on their phones more than talking to and spending time with you? A lot of people just want to be left alone, when you think you’re “having an interesting conversation” or “having a good time” or whatnot with them, it’s entirely possible they’re only doing it out of politeness.

kjkjadksj3• 3 years ago

Why make an effort then to spend time with someone if you will just waste that on your phone? It’s kinda rude to others time.

nvarsj4• 3 years ago

This concept would be hard for extroverts to understand.

beerpls2• 3 years ago

Excellent perspective, not only do the corps have unrealistic standards of evidence, but when they’re questioned by political leaders they outright lie. ex fb claimed they didn’t design their software to hack the dopamine/serotonin systems and the politicians just said “ok”. like what?

We’re living in times where no one is held accountable. Literally billions of lives are being destroyed or seriously damaged for relatively minor profits (per damage caused anyway). When will it change? The populace is so powerless and the politicians are so evil… it’s perfectly understandable why nihilism is so embraced these days

m463• 3 years ago

Does hacker news qualify as social media?

The paper talks about the amount of time spent, taking time away from sleep and physical activity. This might apply.

I don't think other factors like privacy or cyberbullying apply here.

tyleo• 3 years ago

I consider Hacker News social media but I think it’s pretty benign compared to others. Below my threshold of caring or feeling that I need to correct my behavior.

sandworm101• 3 years ago

They said the same about early cellphones. They said the same about walkmans. They said the same about rap music. They said the same about TV. They said the same about comic books. They said the same about rock and roll. Go back far enough and they said the same about the printing press. Ok boomer. Can we please first address the real issues?

paulpauper2• 3 years ago

It is always something. How many times can they cry wolf until we stop taking them seriously, stop giving them taxpayer dollars for research? Anything that people find enjoyable must have some huge consequence for society or individually. People are not allowed to have fun. It's sorta like secular puritanism. It is out of control.

Minor49er• 3 years ago

They said the same about cigarettes and asbestos too. Damn boomers!

CatWChainsaw2• 3 years ago

What are "the real issues"?

paulpauper2• 3 years ago

Now that drugs and cigarettes are passe, social media is the latest thing to be hyped by sociologists, health experts, and the media as a crisis. Same for vaping. Every generation has its crisis and nags. In the 90s it was in regard to violent lyrics in music affecting the youth and causing suicides (even though the problem was vastly overblown). These people want to take away our fun.

CastFX• 3 years ago

yeah but in the 90s you didn't have a measurable and significant increase in teenage suicides and depression, right?

mnd999• 3 years ago

It’s a profound risk to anybody. You don’t become immune when you hit 18.

syngrog66• 3 years ago

I just made a comment on another HN story about social media and mental illness, and a game/sim project I'm building to address it. in some (hopefully) constructive way:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36049027

wolverine876• 3 years ago

It should have been obvious from a parenting perspective. How did we become such idiots that we need healthcare professionals to tell us (which we do need)?

Do you want your child exposed to any arbitrary adult or other child, doing or talking about or showing any arbitrary thing, and in an environment that encourages and celebrates unconstrained sociopathic behavior?

It should have been an easy call for any parent long ago, and adult social media needs to be treated like a bar or R or NC-17 rated movie - not a place for children.

Bars that don't keep out children are considered nuisances to the neighborhood and shut down. Did you know that in some (maybe most) places, if someone leaves a bar and trashes the neighbor's car, the bar is liable?

kart23• 3 years ago

I deleted all social media around the end of 6th grade. This was around the time that instagram was just getting popular, and I had made it at the start of the school year when I got my first smartphone. I remember thinking I was spending too much time on it, and I realized it was stressing me out for absolutely no reason. I decided to get on social media again in my junior year of college, after having essentially no social media from 6th grade til 2nd year of college.

Honestly, I wished I hadn't deleted it. It made me feel like I had missed connecting with my friends, I sometimes look at my friends old posts and feeling a little left out. And there are countless people I could probably still be in at least a little bit of touch with. And I know I'll get people saying that its pointless because I'm not friends with them irl, but I still kinda enjoy seeing what even acquaintances are up to these days on social media. Social media is a part of life now, and forcing your kids off it isn't gonna automatically make them live healthier lives. Let them make their own decision at least, they really are smart enough.

So much of life happens online these days: college, the workplace, dating, etc. Kids need to learn how to communicate over the internet because they're going to be doing it for the rest of their lives, and social media really does help with that.

grugagag• 3 years ago

Honestly, I wished I hadn't deleted it. It made me feel like I had missed connecting with my friends, I sometimes look at my friends old posts and feeling a little left out.

You’d still feel left out even if you were on social media too, and you’d have that feeling 10 fold. The only reason for that feeling is social media pressure and not actually connecting to people IRL. If you did connect to people IRL you did the right thing and what you’re experiencing is just a surface level illusion.

carabiner4• 3 years ago

Every time I see this notion pop up (which I 100% agree with), I think back to how YC published a list of potential startup ideas from current YC participants. One of them was a social network for kids. Just terrible and I'm so glad we've come to realize their harms.

hurtuvac78• 3 years ago

It is just a matter of time before we admit that the profound risk is not specific "to youth", but to everybody.

Adults are just as addicted, with pretty much the same consequences.

Wensio• 3 years ago

This one is a no brainer. You can see people blatantly lie on social media about how amazing they are then run into them in the office and see them just as miserable as the rest of us. Kids are just going to believe whatever they see their favorite influencer do or whatever they say and this goes for everyone on their social media. It's just an echo chamber of anxiety, immediate dopamine release and unrealistic expecations of how the real world works. Wasn't there an article not too long ago about how they watched ONE video about suicide or something similar and tiktok just filled their page with suicide content? Anyone that gets fed the same thing over and over is eventually going to feel some sort of effect. A kid will feel the same but worse since the critial thinking skills arent all there yet.

tjpnz• 3 years ago

Not taking any chances here. When mine are old enough I'm blocking all SNS in my home at the network level and applying parental controls to their mobile devices. Fuck Mark Zuckerberg and all of the charlatans who've followed in his footsteps.

dahwolf• 3 years ago

The warning is correct, I'm really quite sure that any sane individual readily observes that being chronically online isn't exactly good for you. They'll notice this in others but most also have the self-awareness to see the problem in themselves.

Providing "guidance" on adequate use sounds so naive though. It's like telling an overweight person that the guidance is to eat less. Trust me, they know this already.

blurbleblurble• 3 years ago

The bickering and rationalism in this comment section is predictably insufferable

Social media can be a ‘profound risk’ to youth, surgeon general warns

Related Stories