291–300 of 503 posts
Why should only kids be protected from addiction? I have a hard time understanding this. We have plenty of adults with terrible social media addiction that is destroying their lives, and nothing being done about it.
At what point should the responsibility fall on the parent to protect their children from harm? Don’t get me wrong, if I had my way TikTok wouldn’t exist for anyone, adults included. It’s just so strange to me that so many parents hand their 7 year olds unrestricted access to TikTok and expect someone else to keep their kid safe.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The modern-day cigarette is such a perfect metaphor for social media. A cabal of unfathomably wealthy companies spreading their harmful products across the world; making them as addictive as possible while actively burying the research which proves how harmful they are. I truly hope one day we'll look back on social media and smartphone use the same way we regard smoking.
But if you stop using social media, you don't still have a risk of lung cancer in the future. The effects of social media usage are surely reversible by stopping using it and then some retraining of the brain. The effects of years of smoking are not so reversible in terms of what it does to your body.
It took me like five years to realize it was really not good idea for a small B2B business to spend a part of the limited resources in that. I needed several experiences to understand that in many cases good customer relationship and reliable system is much more important. But it wasn’t until recently that I started thinking like “wait, if it tricks the users into doing something they’re unwilling to do, isn’t it unethical?”
It makes me wonder how little we think about the ethics and the consequences of our investment. It’s not like we understand it’s unethical but do it anyway for profit. We simply don’t care how unethical it can be, not even slightly, until the evidence of the harmful effects are not negligible after years and decades.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But if you stop using social media, you don't still have a risk of lung cancer in the future. The effects of social media usage are surely reversible by stopping using it and then some retraining of the brain. The effects of years of smoking are not so reversible in terms of what it does to your body.
I hope you're right but I think you're dead wrong. Social media has not only affected the mental health of millions of people negatively, it has brought about social, political and economic harms that will affect the planet for generations.
But also it doesn't have to exactly reproduce the harms of smoking. It could be that the effects are primarily present tense and completely gone if you stop the habit, and nevertheless, amount to a cumulative social harm that makes it a worthy analogy to smoking. Social media also doesn't cause secondhand smoke or stained teeth, or unpleasurable odors on your person or home or furniture. It doesn't leave butts or debris on the ground. There's probably a lot more I'm not thinking of either, but you can see how nitpicky that starts to feel.
Just do what China does, how fucking hard is it? They have 4x, almost 5x the population of the US. STEM or verifiable educational content only. Have a review team and an AI that moderates content. No politics, no stupid dances, no monetization of content, no slop, and only credentialed people can post on certain topics (ie a delivery driver shouldn't make posts on theoretical mathematics).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But if you stop using social media, you don't still have a risk of lung cancer in the future. The effects of social media usage are surely reversible by stopping using it and then some retraining of the brain. The effects of years of smoking are not so reversible in terms of what it does to your body.
I hope you're right but I think you're dead wrong. Social media has not only affected the mental health of millions of people negatively, it has brought about social, political and economic harms that will affect the planet for generations.
I heard someone on a podcast call social media algorithms "the modern-day cigarette" and that really resonated with me. These companies know their product is addictive and bad for users, but they keep pushing it anyways. Like cigarettes, it's bad for everyone, not just kids. I made an algorithm blocker for Safari because of that and it's actually crazy how much more pleasant social media is if you don't have recommen…
Huh, and like the cigarette, even though I feel like I see what the appeal is supposed to be, I just cannot get over how gross it actually is to engage with, and feel like I’m already ‘over it’ and am just waiting for everyone else to figure it out.
Cigarettes had the bonus of the infamous second hand smoke where it affected those not actively using the cigarette. It was the non-smokers that took action where we first started to see non-smoking sections in public places before eventually going completely non-smoking. There's really no equivalent for people using their devices in zombie mode in public places that affect those not using it to the equivalent public annoyance.
I heard someone on a podcast call social media algorithms "the modern-day cigarette" and that really resonated with me. These companies know their product is addictive and bad for users, but they keep pushing it anyways. Like cigarettes, it's bad for everyone, not just kids. I made an algorithm blocker for Safari because of that and it's actually crazy how much more pleasant social media is if you don't have recommen…
Glad to hear a false comparison to something that's actually physically/chemically addictive really resonated with you (a.k.a. affirmed your already existing beliefs in this moral panic). If we step back and look at this rationally though, can anybody point me to any peer reviewed studies (the actual studies, not clickbait articles written based off the studies) showing that social media is anywhere near as physicall…
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2021/sep/14/facebook-...