Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Social media bans for teenagers lack evidence and pose risks, scientists say

frontiersin.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 74 posts

Re: Social media bans for teenagers lack evidence and pose risks, scientists say

#21

Post by iamalizard »

AmbroseBierce wrote: post #12
kgwxd wrote: post #2

Everyone should get off the engagement driven platforms, but the government shouldn't have a single thing to do with it.

Why? If asbestos is killing us we ban it, if hipotericllly some new form of asbestos is more harmful to young people than the rest we ban it too, why put the pressure of that responsibility in already stressed out population. Corporations know this very well, that's why they love when people have the opinion you just shared here.

From what I know, asbestos is bad when it gets airborne. If it's installed correctly, if workers wear PPE when handling it and if there are periodic checks for cracks, leaks and so on, it's safe. From what I've read, at least - I'm not an expert by any means. I've removed asbestos from a few old buildings but wore PPE. It was very uncomfortable to have the masks and suit on. I even threw away the cloth bags I had to my tools in, just to be safe. We disposed of the asbestos as per regulation. I feel safe and would do it again.

So maybe banning asbestos altogether is overkill.

I'd love to be proven wrong. I don't have any financial interest in asbestos besides the few jobs I've done over the years removing it.

Re: Social media bans for teenagers lack evidence and pose risks, scientists say

#22

Post by krapp »

AmbroseBierce wrote: post #19
Nasrudith wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are providing an accidental illustration of why science is under attack - because people don't like having their beliefs undermined by pesky evidence.

All evidence points out that social media has increased suicide rates in teens https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6791504/

You should learn the difference between correlation and causation, and maybe read the summary of the study you're posting:

    There is an independent association between problematic use of social media/internet and suicide attempts in young people. However, the direction of causality, if any, remains unclear. Further evaluation through longitudinal studies is needed.
Also your claim that "all evidence" points anything out is contradicted by the fact that "all evidence" is not contained within a single study, and the posted article points out that the evidence itself is in dispute.

Re: Social media bans for teenagers lack evidence and pose risks, scientists say

#23

Post by iamalizard »

AmbroseBierce wrote: post #14
fyrabanks wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

good parenting, as always, remains the best solution

Yeah, tell that to those parents with 3 jobs and can barely make any time with their kids that they have to keep an eye on even more things, things that weren't even a thing in their childhood or their predecessors.

Wouldn't the correct solution be to empower those parents with subsidies or free child care? If you have to work 3 jobs, parent or not, there is something wrong with how we've structured our society. Banning social media in your example seems like a bandaid put on a person with external and internal bleeding. You'll stop some of the bleeding but the person will still suffer and die.

Re: Social media bans for teenagers lack evidence and pose risks, scientists say

#24

Post by AmbroseBierce »

krapp wrote: post #22
AmbroseBierce wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All evidence points out that social media has increased suicide rates in teens https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6791504/

You should learn the difference between correlation and causation, and maybe read the summary of the study you're posting: There is an independent association between problematic use of social media/internet and suicide attempts in young people. However, the direction of causality, if any, remains unclear. Further evaluation through longitudinal studies is needed. Also your claim that "all evidence" points anything o…

Yeah, I'm sure surviving adolescence needs even more insecurities brought by comparing yourself to the ad-fueled fake happiness machinery that is social media, let's wait for the damage during a couple of decades so we can have conclusive data that satisfies you before we decide to do something, feels like not having enough people with terminal cancer to decide to do something about cigarettes.

Re: Social media bans for teenagers lack evidence and pose risks, scientists say

#25

Post by kgwxd »

psychoslave wrote: post #3
kgwxd wrote: post #2

Everyone should get off the engagement driven platforms, but the government shouldn't have a single thing to do with it.

Formally the same as stating "Everyone should get off the addiction driven drug cartel, but the government shouldn't have a single thing to do with it."

Yes. They don't actually care about the drug part anyway, beyond the excuse it gives them to operate outside their jurisdiction. We already have sane laws to cover the other crimes a "cartel" might do.

Re: Social media bans for teenagers lack evidence and pose risks, scientists say

#26

Post by gensym »

> Not a single social media restriction experiment has included people under the age of 16. We do not know how social media bans will affect the young people being targeted by them because we have never tested this with them!

I've also never tested my ability to survive a 100ft fall. Maybe I can! We have no way of knowing!

> Virtually all schools in the United States report that they use social media for communications, including for key announcements such as making families aware of upcoming opportunities, educational programming, and key deadlines. The reliance on social media for communication and resource sharing, while banning youth from these same platforms, sends mixed messages to young people and limits their access to health promoting information and resources.

That's a good point. There's no other way that schools could communicate such things. My childhood in the 80s and 90s certainly didn't include Scouts, 4-H, Band, Drama, Cross-Country, etc! I'm sure with social media bans for youth, schools will just continue to use social media to try to communicate to kids rather than adapting.

I have to assume the authors of this paper know how dumb it is and just don't care since most people will only read the headline.

Re: Social media bans for teenagers lack evidence and pose risks, scientists say

#27

Post by jmward01 »

nairboon wrote: post #8

> Candice L. Odgers serves on the Youth and Families Advisory Committee for YouTube.

Who is 'Candice L. Odgers'? The article's author is 'Monika Neff Lind, PhD'. 'Candice L. Odgers' isn't mentioned in the article anywhere that I see. What was your goal of implying this is a quote/this person was relevant?

Re: Social media bans for teenagers lack evidence and pose risks, scientists say

#28

Post by AmbroseBierce »

iamalizard wrote: post #23
AmbroseBierce wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, tell that to those parents with 3 jobs and can barely make any time with their kids that they have to keep an eye on even more things, things that weren't even a thing in their childhood or their predecessors.

Wouldn't the correct solution be to empower those parents with subsidies or free child care? If you have to work 3 jobs, parent or not, there is something wrong with how we've structured our society. Banning social media in your example seems like a bandaid put on a person with external and internal bleeding. You'll stop some of the bleeding but the person will still suffer and die.

Yeah, there is almost always better solutions to all problems than the one society goes to, but history has taught us that that a lot of times if we wait for the "better solution" we end up years and even decades without either solution.

Re: Social media bans for teenagers lack evidence and pose risks, scientists say

#29

Post by [deleted] »

jmward01 wrote: post #27
nairboon wrote: post #8

> Candice L. Odgers serves on the Youth and Families Advisory Committee for YouTube.

Who is 'Candice L. Odgers'? The article's author is 'Monika Neff Lind, PhD'. 'Candice L. Odgers' isn't mentioned in the article anywhere that I see. What was your goal of implying this is a quote/this person was relevant?

[deleted]

Re: Social media bans for teenagers lack evidence and pose risks, scientists say

#30

Post by uniqueuid »

jmward01 wrote: post #27
nairboon wrote: post #8

> Candice L. Odgers serves on the Youth and Families Advisory Committee for YouTube.

Who is 'Candice L. Odgers'? The article's author is 'Monika Neff Lind, PhD'. 'Candice L. Odgers' isn't mentioned in the article anywhere that I see. What was your goal of implying this is a quote/this person was relevant?

The link is only to the marketing fluff piece, the paper is here and has three authors [1]

[1] https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/developmental-psycholog...

Post reply on HN