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

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).

To take a crack at the old chestnut, masking didn’t do anything productive.

https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2023/02/covid-mas...

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/02/21/opinion/do-mask-mandates-...

It did however appear to retard social skills development in children. It’s hard to find a definitive argument.

> Social media upturns traditional government controlled information transmission. E.g. the US government built its case for the Iraq War partly on fake information run by the NYT (by the currently media-respected journalist Judith Miller).

I agree with much of this: the PR foundation for the war in Iraq was based on cherry-picked information and a large degree of media manipulation. However, the media outlets also were not blameless; there is considerable fault to go around. Many journalists were too trusting. Knight-Ridder may have been the only major journalism team to get it right. (Fair?)

> Control of information transmission by attempting to FUD alternative means is a way to consolidate opinions - a way to manufacture consent.

As a method, yes. The logic is sound. But to prove it happens, we must investigate. When it is a large explanatory factor? In what specific situations?

I agree it applied to the Bush administration’s handling of claims of WMD in Iraq.

But I’m not clear on how it applies to the social media guidance for children.

I think it would be ‘reasonable’ for social media companies to lobby public health officials to water down the government criticism of them. (But I’m not clear if this is along the lines you are thinking.)

To put a fine point on it: Are you claiming that U.S. public health authorities are seeking (or under pressure) to “manufacture consent” broadly, in this sense; namely, to counter social media only because it challenge and undermines government information?

Are you saying U.S. government attempts to “manufacture consent” only for selfish purposes (to control the dissemination of information), without caring about the veracity of such social media claims?

Another motivation is more plausible: public health officials intend to protect public health, (as constrained by the powers their agencies have)?

A lot of social media information suffers from being false and misleading. It is a proper role of government to have official channels to put out vetted information. Ideally, these channels would be true and well supported by evidence.

We can and should be skeptical of such official advice, but it should be treated seriously and be given some weight.

We also must be skeptical of claims of a broad motivation to “control information” overrides a public health agency’s primary professional responsibility.

Even if there is significant motivation, where is the ability? The federal bureaucracy is quite sprawling and hard to control. Such attempts to do often lead to resignations, legal battles, and/or leaks.

…

I might even agree with the ethics that suggest getting masks to key personnel is worth some degree of public deception. I’m not sure. A lot of disaster and emergency triage involves tough choices. When we’re acting ideally, public officials don’t have to lie or mislead.

In any case, the effect of deception is a loss of trust.

But if they don't have social media, how will they see other kids calling them names for not owning the right backpack outside of school? Think of the harm to their socialization!

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.