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

71–74 of 74 posts

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

#71

Post by soraminazuki »

krapp wrote: post #50
AmbroseBierce wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The issue of having to prove things beyond any doubt before we do something is a systemic problem that science itself it's aware of about itself and have been discussed extensively in purely rational settings, how many lives would have been saved from lung cancer if academics had took more seriously the initial research about smoking?. So no I don't believe for a second you are discussing in good faith, instead it se…

>instead it seems like you quite a clear agenda and wouldn't care much about any evidence against social media, maybe because you work at one of those corporations or just are ideologically attached to one. And there it is. I don't agree with you so I must be a shill or a disinfo agent. No, I'm not. I just disagree with you. No one is actually arguing that things have to be proven beyond any doubt. Nor is anyone argu…

[dead]

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

#72

Post by superkuh »

Daishiman wrote: post #62
superkuh wrote: post #49

It is universal that authoritarians want to characterize audio-visual screens as if they directly altered incentive salicence like addictive drugs do. They do this because the false comparison, the inaccurate social memes (dopamine hit, etc), all invoke the coercion of actual drugs. But the fact is that audio-visual screens do not alter incentive salience directly. They are just like any other part of our world and s…

By your logic gambling is A-OK? I take it you never go to restaurants and see kids socially stunted by being hung up on tablets?

Gambling disorder is not like drugs in that it gambling does not directly hijack incentive salience either but I agree it can be seriously debilitating. That's an observable reality though I've never personally known someone who had that issue. It's been grandfathered into the DSM and law for so long the status quo is probably okay and does help people.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blind_men_and_an_elephant You are right that the children I see around my region aren't like you describe. I don't eat out. But I am often outside biking around and see people outside (kids included) biking around. My siblings and friends' kids read books in addition to being technically competent with desktop (or at least laptop) computers. I'm not sure which of us is seeing the smaller part of the elephant but to me the kids seem alright.

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

#73

Post by AmbroseBierce »

krapp wrote: post #70
pacman1337 wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This exactly the issue. Anyone with common sense knows that social media have many negative effects, attention span, negative beliefs and ideas, addiction, etc. Just like inhaling smoke into your lungs can't be healthy right? But then comes so called scientist who say well since we thought the the universe was Euclidean but now we see it is non-Euclidean what is common sense is not common sense, there is no common se…

> Anyone with common sense knows that social media have many negative effects, attention span, negative beliefs and ideas, addiction, etc. This is common sense. > Just like inhaling smoke into your lungs can't be healthy right? You're asserting that social media is as dangerous and deadly and smoking. That isn't common sense. > But then comes so called scientist who say well since we thought the the universe was Eucl…

Why is a risk supposed to be taken by all society instead of a controlled environment? If you really believe in science you wouldn't believe in experiments done to uncontrolled amounts of population, just like the FDA doesn't just let everyone release all possible drugs and only after that start investigating them to check which ones are the harmful ones then why you believe that is the scientific approach to social media? It makes absolutely no sense even from the scientific standpoint that you supposedly believe in.
Post reply on HN