Heavy social media use associated with lower mental health in adolescents
bbc.com
bbc.com
First semester of college, I stopped using Twitter. My sleep got better, I had more free time, and I was noticeably happier and freer. I no longer spent time in that dopamine cycle.
I've been weening off of Reddit and HN the past few months as well. YouTube is my next beast to conquer, and that might be the biggest one for me right now. I'm trying to adapt to longer form content again, instead of only watching videos under a minute or reading 280 character tweets. I want to have an attention span again, I really do.
Is social media an inherently evil thing? I don't think so, but I don't think I should use it. I also think that it can be toxic for teenagers in general. There are a variety of reasons, but the one that applied to me was the dopamine cycle caused by "likes".
I wouldn't say that social media is inherently bad because it can be addicting, because games aren't seen as inherently bad because they can be addicting.
Interestingly, it was a mushroom trip that did it. The mushroom spirit (or whatever you want to call it) lucidly explained how I was wasting my life on those websites. The next day I quit, and its been years now, though I def felt withdrawals for a few weeks being off of twitter. Now it's like I was never even there.
I feel so bad for all of the young people who can't understand, due to peer pressure, just how bad it is for them. And shame on parents for not making more of an effort to ask questions.
As if doesn't have infinite scroll, is less addicting.
Yet at least some of them would gladly downvote a poster who behaves badly, e.g. is deliberately disruptive.
That way I can engage in a topic if I really want to.
It also eliminates opportunities to make new friends. It's surprisingly difficult to find a knitting group in my area that doesn't organize using Facebook Groups, for example.
It frankly worries me. In the past, we worried about monopolies on things like oil and diamonds. I'm not sure our culture has the tools to cope with a monopoly on participation in society.
After a while, though, it just sort of filtered the events down to those I cared more about. My good friends still reach out directly and vice versa. I think it took a while for that to start happening though.
I've lost touch with many acquaintances, but if I'm being honest it's probably better that I don't expend energy on those people. I'm certainly not isolated from society, though. I just engage on my own terms.
For example; I joined my local Masonic lodge and started doing Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu. Between those two things alone I find I have regular enough interactions with a variety of different people that I naturally find out about, and am invited to events and activities that more than make up for the loss of social media.
I'm not suggesting everyone join a Masonic lodge (obviously) or take up Jiu-Jitsu. There are a great number of things everyone can do that gets them around other people in a way that is natural and fulfilling.
Also--and this, I find, is critical--all my old friends are still friends and they call or email or text me and I them. Anyone who claimed to be my friend but couldn't be bothered to get in touch with me after I dropped social media was never a very good friend to begin with.
For example I tangentally consider meetup groups to be social media, but the entire point is that you actually meet people in real life. That led to me meeting one of my partners in 2019
I also do keep a Facebook around so when I meet people traveling I can just add them easily, I almost never ever use anything aside from Facebook messenger, and to maybe view a few events that my friends are organizing.
I think the key way to think about Facebook is that it's original purpose, keep talking to your college friends, wasn't bad. It's just it's mutated purpose of trying to spread mis information, spreading gossip, and bullying are absolutely disgusting.
After the first shutdown lifted somewhat, the health department mandates requires us to be part of small "pods" to help contain any spread (as an aside, that has worked surprisingly well considering how close in contact people are) We're also restricted to a limited number days we can train so pod members have to coordinate with each other the classes we're planning to attend so that we don't show up and be the only guy or gal in our pod that night.
You know how we invariably coordinate? Email or text. Primarily email in fact. It wasn't planned or dictated by anyone. It just worked out that way.
I had to be deliberate about telling people I'm not going to see their post about xyz so they would have to text or call me if they want to invite me. Sure I probably miss some events but the ones I go to I know I'm wanted at.
Socializing passively at a gym or Jiu-Jitsu or some type of class is the main way I've built friend groups over the years.
You’ll find people are very willing to discuss things if you initiate. This is how we did it before social media and it’s by far the more pleasant way. Just don’t be a jerk, you’ll be fine.
MeetUp is a great resource too. I’ve even asked randoms on NextDoor if they want to meet up at the pub. There are ways to be social without the big social media platforms.
But over time that difficulty lessened. I found the connections I made outside of Facebook were longer lasting and more meaningful, because there was actually some onus on me to try and stay engaged. And people do respond well when you demonstrate you care to engage in a deeper fashion. It feels like relationship building / maintenance in today's age is something of a lost art, because it's become so easy to superficially connect without putting in a bunch of work.
The big social platforms make you want to believe there's a monopoly on societal participation. Pushing back against that energy is such a powerful thing, even if it's somewhat isolating in the short-term.
Just think about that - you denpend on big tech for the very media through which you perform the majority of interactions with your "friends".
As for mass media, it is far too driven by reaction, and I mostly avoid all of it. In-depth general media, and focused media are more interesting. The Economist is generally great, for instance, because most everything is in depth. I've recently taken to reading a shipping news site, and that is interesting because I can hear more pertinent information about, say covid, because they aren't reporting about covid, but reporting the effects of covid.
Mostly I think we need more education and training for our population on handling media. Too many people seem to take whatever the read as truth and insert it directly into their brain without an skepticism or critical thought. I hate that. Everyone should have a "news vestibule" in their brain where new information must sit and be verified before they allow it into their mind as a whole.
Lastly, I'm now much more inclined to pay for content than I was 5 years ago.
The early 20th century may have seemed hunky-dory to a lot of people, but there was a lot of bad stuff going on that just never had the chance to see the light of day. I don't want to go back to that.
Take it to a further extreme, the Amish. I'm sure many of them think life is great out there on the farm. But they aren't going to be much help for solving problems on a national or global scale. Heck even their votes (do they vote?) are probably based on some community consensus or shared local interest. As you narrow your gaze you limit your ability to participate in the world.
majority of things from the news has no impact on me at all
I have a Gopher site for that, from a really insteresting guy:
gopher.club/1/users/mmeta4/
No ads, no likes, no bullshit. Just pure text, some images and PDF's readable even under a Linux framebuffer.
You can argue that this logic is flawed or something, but that's how it is in reality.
I use them thru Lynx and a framebuffer image viewer.
Everything else is bullshit.
I'm probably 90% better informed than half of the mooks being idiotized at the social media.
I check that a couple times a week, and feel very “caught up”, and also have an opportunity to dive in deep as needed.
Really mental health should be considered to have at least two components - 'morale' related to functioning and happiness and 'attunement to reality' based upon perceiving the world as close to as it is as possible essentially. That approach sounds like something which would boost the first at the cost of the second.
For some reason it seems to bring out the worst in so many people, and people think it's now acceptable to post online the awful thoughts that they would've kept to themselves
However, I wonder if the simplest strategy that works when you have to get along with everyone is that you have to become an noisy asshole that overreacts to real "enemies" over imagined slights.
Kind of estranged my family to do it, but as soon as I was in my new city I had a great girlfriend, and my cost of living was much lower, I was much happier.
The old journey kind of took me on a personal discovery. You shouldn't worry about other people criticizing your choices because they aren't going to really affect them, and even if they are they're adults they can sort something else out.
In this new city I would notice even though technically the population was large, the communities were very tight-knit. If you're rude to the local bartender her dad might have a word with you. Contrast it to the internet, I spoke to a girl who had to stop using dating apps because guys would just lead with calling her nasty and fat. In real life if you do that there can be immediate consequences to that behavior.
Imagine if you will you were at a bar, and the Packers are playing the raiders or something, if you start yelling at random people that raiders fans are disgusting and horrible you can expect to be removed, and banned from returning to that bar. ( Or they might agree with you and buy you a beer who knows).
On twitter, Reddit Facebook whatever that doesn't really exist. You can say ridiculously nasty mean things to everyone and nothing's going to happen to you. I had to stop using social media because I would become distraught over some of the stuff I read, almost all the bigotry I experienced was entirely online.
Everyone has a right to spend their time in their energy the way they choose, but since I don't want to be called slurs I don't use social media. I've posted here a ton but back in 2019 I went completely offline and I had amazing partners, made tons of friends, traveled. I even increased my income by no small amount, I used that time I was spending making the Zuckerbergs of the world rich into improving myself.
but if I've learned one thing in my life, it's that self-improvement is very hard, I'm the only person who can put down the second donut. it's a lot easier to go on Reddit and then complain about how societies out to get you, are to go on Twitter and just spread your own, really just self-hatred to other people hoping to dissipate it. Yet you can't, spreading hate doesn't take it out of you, if anything you're just going to get more hate back and then it builds up like a fuel.
Most angry online folks, if you took away their social media and slowly reintroduced them to community, maybe a nice bowling league or something, within a year they'd be so much happier.
Those services match you, with other who share similar views/preferences - putting you inside a bubble.
Before social media radical views\moronic opinions etc. wouldn't spread so far- because others would point out flaws in your reasoning or outright laugh at it.
Now? you have permanent access to enabling group - group who share views, and support each other - entrenching it.
Flatearthers would be ridiculed anywhere - but not they have a group that supports them.
Not to mention that there are literally no consequences of holding an objectively wrong opinion(back to flatearthers) in online discourse.
Don't get me wrong, those people with those view always existed - they just get exposed, via the worst invention of 2000s/2010s, to each other and that let them be more vocal about it.
At that point, they usually mention Galileo and maybe some others, and they ask how do we avoid squashing the next Galileo with our measures to limit the spread of flat Earth theories?
The answer is that if flat Earth or whatever is actually correct it will eventually prevail as did Galileo and all the others they cite (and they faced much more severe measures than merely being denied use of their society's equivalent of mass media). It will just take longer as it will have to use slower more personal communication channels.
That's a good thing. Let's say there are dozens of radical theories circulating, and suppose one of them really is the next Galileo type situation, and the rest really are just utterly insane.
If they all have to spread by the slower more personal channels any given person will likely only be exposed to maybe two or three of them. They aren't overwhelmed by them, and that gives them a better chance of figuring out that the stupid ones are in fact stupid. It is usually much more work to refute a theory, even a stupid one, than to come up with it, and the slow spread gives time for the refutations to be developed and put out there.
If they were all on the fast mass audience channels, people get exposed to so many of them that they don't have time to really figure out if they make sense, and (2) even if a good refutation is out it is easy to miss it in all the noise.
There are many ways to confirm major pieces of evidence for, say, the earth being round. It’s easy enough to do, even without getting into a rocket and seeing the earth’s curvature.
There are many fewer ways to confirm a whole lot of other ideas, though, whether there’s scientific rigor behind the idea’s evidence or not.
For example, I can’t easily confirm the Higgs Boson evidence. But it also doesn’t directly impact my life much, so it’s ok for me to be a little unsure about it and not have first hand evidence.
There are other topics that impact me much more directly than Higgs Boson, and thankfully those things are typically much easier for me to get evidence for. So I think the truth does indeed eventually come to fruition... but when we have vested moneyed interests pushing against the truth? Yikes, that makes things much more difficult.
The Sea of human knowledge is too vast for any single human to traverse it fully.
But here you have people who are anti-experts, who are matched with others with similar sentiment.
And flat-earthers are a very specific example. What about politics, where facts do not matter? Or even objective issues, which got politicized?
The only thing the current social media do, is to entrench beliefs of everyone using them, without regard to what that belief is.
On a side note I would like to remind everyone that Galileo's theories weren't fitting the observations of the world, it was step in right direction but he was also being a dick about it.
It took quite some time for us to develop better lenses, and to use elliptical instead of spherical orbits.
-Uncle Ben
Does it? I've been using social media extensively for almost 30 years now (and now building social platforms for nearly a decade), and a lot of the biggest opportunities I've gotten in my life/career have come from social media. Whatever anxiety it can cause on a day-to-day basis, I feel like you more than make back in various benefits over the long term.
It may seem that way but don't believe it's 100% accurate.
Mental pressure built up within yourself, whatever is their cause, get somewhat released after a good cry. Afterwards you feel a little bit refreshed. You feel a little bit less sad. The anger within you is not as prominent.
Lashing out on people, starting flame wars in your favorite online forum, screaming, yelling and DEMANDING to be heard, shouldn't that also release some of the tensions we all carry around with us from time to time? Wouldn't that leave us a little less motivated to go out IRL and actually hurt someone physically, a little less motivated to sit down and furiously start on the next evil manifesto?
My own brain, though, is not built for social media. I need to see the nervous twitch in your eye, your conniving smile or the loving wink of your eye in order to fully understand you and I think oftentimes when you misunderstand me it's because you didn't see my eye twitching or my mouth smiling. But I've heard other people being absolutely in love with it. It can't be all bad.
So I think you're right that while it is a release, it's an anti-productive one.
One analogy I saw once likened it to having a balloon. You forgot to take out the trash this morning--the balloon got blown up a little. You got stuck in traffic--the balloon got blown up a little more. All those little things happening throughout the day and blowing up that balloon a little bit more each time and pretty soon that balloon is going to violently pop. We can choose things in our life that release that balloon periodically however, and in doing so it never gets so full that it pops.
To me, there is no difference between lashing out online or in person and is more akin to that balloon popping (or, at the very least, adding air to it) than it is releasing air from it.
Not all people have set up a structure in their lives that allow them to slowly release that pressure. We do not all have people in our lives that we can talk to about our feelings. Social media might help these folks.
If I were to lash out at you during lunch or while we're in meeting, people would probably ask me to calm down and say "hey dude, what's going on, you're acting irrational, where is this anger coming from?" and "can we help you in some way, so that you won't feel the need to be so aggressive?"
Social media, however, has not only made flame wars easier to achieve, it has also made it much easier to ignore any concern we might have for the lasher-outers, the people who are clearly in need of some love and affection. In social media, we burn these people by stripping them of their karma.
I find poorly designed karma systems, not social media, to be at fault.
What I suspect would be better would be to pick up the phone and call that person and say those things. The release of venting verbally with a person who is understanding and prepared to accept the venting is likely significantly more productive and healthier than over text.
Then again, 99% of the time, we don't even know that persons name, much less their phone number. Therein lies, I think in part, the crux of the problem: I'm a tribe member who is able to throw stones at a member of a different tribe without immediate or clear consequence.
The algorithms don’t encourage reading of responses like that typically... and, alas, human nature doesn’t really encourage people to “like” or “love” or otherwise strongly react to messages like that.
If the algorithms didn’t exist, the most recent would appear first.
If the algorithms were tuned differently, NLP could be used to pick out the most thoughtful and caring messages to show people, rather than the most liked or most emotionally charged.
I think any social media company using an algorithm should be responsible for what they show, since they have switched from publishing everything to picking winners and losers.
> So I think you're right that while it is a release, it's an anti-productive one.
That ... actually sounds like it had the result of making you not want to do it again in the future, and if that's the case, one could say it was productive. And if lashing out online has less of a bad impact on the person on the other end than lashing out in person, then that seems like an improvement to me.
I don't have to see that online. I get to lob bombs over the wire at someone I've never met and will likely never meet. I can make them feel bad and feel very little consequence for it but easily justify my actions to myself in no small part because I don't have to see how it affected them.
Interestingly enough, HN and reddit have both been really useful for me. Both are much more focused AND the people there don't gain anything by attacking me personally, only by attacking my ideas. This has been really good because it's allowed me to get used to communicating ideas in a way that people will understand them and getting used to people being upset at me.
Social media where people know who I am in real life though, has been terrible. Like, the worst was a few different relatives who were getting "offending" at me because it gave them social capital with other relatives. I had nothing to do with anything, they just wanted to look good in front of someone else by trying to make me look bad. And I suppose that's a good lesson to learn, but it's not something I want to have to deal with from arbitrary many people.
Still can't kick HN ;)
Back when I was a kid, if we had internet access at all, we mostly used it for the community aspect. A fan of some book? Search for it on Altavista and you likely found some kind of fan site which had a little bulletin board community organized around it. Or maybe a usenet group. A few minutes down the road you were talking to strangers on the other side of the planet about something you were all actively interested in. Hell, even radio stations had their own chat rooms and forums. Many free software tools had dedicated IRC channels. Mailing lists and usenet groups abound.
These communities were all interest based, and there were sooooo many of them. Because they were interest based, they mostly attracted people who at least had something in common with you, which made it easy to relate to them. And because people are not onedimensional, they were often part of many different communities. Which, aside from being fun, was also a great way to learn how to interact with people all over the world.
Sure, flame wars were a thing, and I'm sure people were bullied and whatnot. Community moderation worked pretty well, though (as someone who administered a 10k+ members forum) it could be a lot of work. But no one ever damaged their mental health by frequenting a knitting forum.
Facebook pretty much destroyed all of these (or at least decimated them). Perhaps these groups are still around, but it's now actively hard to find them. FB does not foster a sense of community. It's not a platform where you will learn anything about any topic. It's not an environment that's conducive to improving personal interactions. It attempted to centralize those things, and it failed. Instead of paying attention to things that interest us, we now have FB and its ilk begging us to please pay attention to their garbage. I miss actual communities, warts and all, and I think that young people's mental health would be better off if they made a return.
Final note: yes, there are exceptions, I know it's not all quite as bad as I'm dramatizing here.
I have found that Discord has become the closest contemporary thing to the old communities you talk about.
Many niche interests now have small Discord servers with like minded people, and if you hang around long enough you will become integrated with one of these niche communities.
I have been a part of several Discord servers for 5 years and I feel like they truly are communities: there is a deep history of the active members; people who met on Discord have visited each other in real life; members have gotten married; members have shared in grief as other members committed suicide; over time people have come and gone, but they have always had the Discord community to come back to when a relationship falls through, or they just need companionship in a tough time.
The executive summary highlights:
* Personal wellbeing drops, on average, as children move from primary into secondary school, and continues to drop as children move through secondary school.
* We find a graded relationship between family income and all three outcomes through adolescence: young people’s mental and emotional health scores are worse the lower down their family is on the income scale
*Engaging in physical activity was found to be more important for boys’ mental and emotional health in early adolescence than girls’, with a graded relationship between frequency of exercise and scores on all three outcomes for 14-year-old boys; at age 17, we find a graded relationship with frequency of exercise in both girls and boys. Heavy social media use is associated with worse scores on all outcomes in girls age 14 and 17, but only worse well being for boys at age 14.
Etc...
[1]https://epi.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/EPI-PT_Young-p...
> Engaging in physical activity was found to be more important for boys’ mental and emotional health
is because (personal anecdata warning!) guys tend to prefer friends who are physically fit. This is just something I've noticed by observing my school; the stronger guys tend to have a larger social circle.
However, this causation could be flawed, maybe physically active people have better emotional health and that's why people are attracted (friendship-wise) to them.
Shocking.
So yeah, I can intuitively believe this study.
Personally, the experience is a bit incredible.
The lawn as a concept has a fascinating history on its own. It’s a remnant of aristocratic signaling “look how much land I have that I can afford to put aside some of it over here for no reason”.
It's all correlational (observing that people with higher social media use are worse off in various ways). This approach is not capable of detecting reverse causation (people use social media more because they are unhappy) or third causes (something else causes people to both use more social media and also be unhappy)
> One in three girls was unhappy with their personal appearance by the age of 14, compared with one in seven at the end of primary school.
That comparison doesn't support the hypothesis. It should have been compared to teenagers from 10 years ago. Otherwise, you can't rule out the effect of growing up on the mental health if these girls.
I was one too. I (objectively) looked just fine but I thought I was a disfigured ghoul.
If I'd really seen myself when I looked in the mirror I would have been better off. I didn't, I saw someone who was supposed to look like Cindy Crawford and was failing miserably.
And to whom anyone who isn't keeping up the same level of image consciousness, won't compare.
"But she posted a video without makeup when that hash tag was trending, and I look nothing like that when I do the same," at the social media star's most flattering angle, filmed through a $5K lens attached to a $3K DSLR body, with ideal lighting, post-processed...
It is not just about what ideals you see. It is also and maybe more about what is said about those who fail that standard. How they are treated and how you are treated.
The news of the world has been pretty bad all around, getting worse and worse over the past decade. I can't help but wonder if being online plugs someone more deeply into that news, and the actual cause of the damage to one's mental health is more exposure to multi-sourced narratives unfiltered by the editorial voice often employed by traditional news media.
What if these young people are showing signs of mental trauma because mental trauma is a predictable reaction to being informed about the state of the world, and being more online leaves one more informed?
> Heavy social media use is associated with worse scores on all outcomes in girls age 14 and 17, but only worse wellbeing for boys at age 14. In a model controlling for pre-existing levels of self-esteem and wellbeing, we find that low levels of physical activity remain associated with lowself-esteem and wellbeing scores in girls and boys through adolescence, while heavy social media use contributes to low self-esteem and wellbeing in girls, and wellbeing in boys at age 14.In focus groups, young people highlighted the positive and negative aspects of social media. While girls tended to focus on the negative impact on body image, boys felt that the images they saw on social media platforms could be aspirational.
> “Those who feel worse may turn to social media for solace or community,” Dr Amy Orben, research fellow at Emmanuel College, University of Cambridge, said of the research.
“It’s not a vacuum, it works both ways."
But the actual article headline is the typical clickbait interpretation of a scientific study.
http://www.nautil.us/blog/studies-shoot-down-techs-harmful-e...
> A new study in Nature Human Behaviour, which looked at data from more than 350,000 adolescents, also found that digital tech use mattered little to kids’ well-being. The authors, Amy Orben and Przybylski, argue that prior research, which examined the impact of social media on teens and tweens, was based on weak correlations and insufficiently comprehensive methods, and therefore drew false conclusions.
I'm sure a teenager who runs exclusively in cutting or pro-anorexia social circles online is a much different teenager to one who primarily uses the internet to keep up to date on horse shows.
"When you were in school, you only compared yourself to peers at your school and maybe one school over. Now me and my friends compare our looks, accomplishments, and follower counts to everyone within 10 years of us on Instagram"
If you came up with a substance that caused young people by the millions to become totally addicted, cost them multiple hours per day, pushed them into depression and suicide, and contributed to inactivity, obesity, loss of attention span, and overall ennui, it would be banned almost immediately.
Heck, if you proposed a tracking system that kept track of kids' whereabouts, social connections, and required them to post identifying information and photos, as well as gather their interests and political leanings, it'd be illegal.
The fact that we allowed companies to do these two things together while making money off it is absolutely astounding to me.
Maybe I'm prude or naive but I remember vividly when I first saw a pornographic movie at like around 17. It really shook me at the time. I wasn't traumatized or anything but it made a strong impact on me.
These days I expect that most teens experience this at like 12yo on their smartphones. Last week I was linked a reddit video of some guy dying in absolutely gruesome circumstance due to an industrial accident. And then there's the constant influx of disinformation. Did you know that Hydroxychloroquine cures HIV? I saw a Youtube video claiming just that yesterday.
Leaving a kid on the internet is like living them on a shaddy part of town for hours at a time. I'm old enough that I only had internet at home when I turned 18, in hindsight I feel like I dodged a bullet.
Saying that it's 100% impossible to stop kids from using the internet is as true as saying that it's 100% impossible to stop kids from trying alcohol. But there's a difference between a kid getting drunk once at a party and a kid being a habitual, daily alcoholic.
As a parent you want to guide them towards healthy ways to engage with things that could otherwise destroy them in excess. Social media in moderation is fine. Social media in excess isn't, and that's where a lot of parents have left their kids (because even they don't know how to use it in moderation; society hasn't caught up yet).
This, 1000 times this. Also, leaving kids completely without supervision or using screen time/smartphones to babysit them it's easy but it's just like tech-debt and really any other form of debt. You will pay the consequences 10x during their teen years.
And at this point even a lot of engineers I know fall into the traps of addiction and echo chambers quite readily. I find of Tristan Harris’s “pointing supercharged AI at our brains” line to be accurate.
I'm 30, so myspace and Facebook showed up only once I was in high school, but everything you describe was still available on the web before social media. Shock sites were huge (goatse, tubgirl, etc), and I remember watching a beheading with a chainsaw by a Mexican cartel. And of course porn was around too.
The difference with social media is the "keeping up with the Joneses" except now it's your entire life, not just your literal neighbor. Way more damaging long term, since you actually know these people and can relate to them. Yeah the beheading was shocking, but I'm not hanging out with cartels regularly. Just a completely different thing.
And we can even go further back; have people checked, old black & white cartoon? Some of them are so blatantly propaganda/politica/visual horrific that they wouldn't even be aired for 15 y.o today. If you take a closer look, even Tom & Jerry is quite violent, and most Japanese animation that air on kids TV-channel back then also, very sexual.
And these things were airing on TV, broadcasting at a specific time and all you had to do as a kid was to push a couple of buttons to access it.
You couldn't see the surveillance footage a guy being dismembered by a lathe or weird Japanese rape porn in 1080p by "pushing a couple of buttons" before the internet. Well, at least not where I grew up...
During the early years of the German equivalent of high school, most of my classmates would spend days without being online once.
Aside from the psychological differences with teens, we also have to consider that they aren't being exposed to this environment "in moderation". They don't really have the opportunity to think about their responses to it.
That, and the pervasiveness of social media. Myspace, for example, was huge. But unlike today’s social media, maybe 25% of your AFK circles would hang out there, not 95% like today.
So while I very well remember goatse, tubgirl and rotten.com, I only discovered those as an adult.
Also note that I wasn't singling out social media here. It's the web as a whole that seems very unsuited for a teenager without supervision, IMO.
Ouch. Right in the nostalgia :)
I'm pretty convinced that just a "dumb" web 1.0 site of shocking content is way better for your mental health than a handful of giant corporations honing in on your psyche and exploiting the weaknesses of the human mind.
To use your example as an analogy, most porn with any production value at all will show a drastically distorted depiction of what sex is actually like. To be raised on a diet of unrealistic porn will not leave you merely ill-prepared for an actual sexual relationship, but will actively disillusion you when reality fails to match your expectations.
If you let your kids use social media, then you need to take steps to emphasize the hyperprocessed fiction that it represents.
I first got access to porn when I was 12, but I heard the disclaimer, everyone told me it wasn't realistic, and I don't think it skewed my expectations too much. IMO humans learn and adapt. I don't think that porn is a threat, but I do wish there was more sex education, and maybe relationship coaching for teenagers... Teenagers need to be taught early to have realistic relationship expectations in general, how to approach someone respectfully and accept "no" for an answer, consent, etc.
I'm not sure how you balance those two things. My sense, though, is that the balance was better 20, 25 years ago, when the Internet had more small, individualized communities. Most of them have since been squashed by the rise of the social media oligopoly.
Later on in life, I think everyone knew "a guy" at work that had all kinds of taboo material. The Weird Eddies or Creepy Colins of the world had a black-market snatched from them when the internet got popular.
I was able to find some wonderful communities, like the iPhone jailbreaking community on IRC, which completely changed my life and put me on the path I am on now. I was also on Twitter in the early days, too, which was the primary way that the iOS development community communicated. Facebook allowed me to connect with my high school robotics community, as well.
Communities like this existed before my time with Flash games, Neopets, MySpace, etc. and continue to this day, with the Minecraft modding community, Roblox game building community, etc.
But at the same time I also agree that social media has become incredibly toxic and addictive, and we don’t give anyone any tools to navigate it. I ultimately quit social media entirely, but my younger sister spends 3.5 hours a day on social media. I think this is a relatively new beast, and not inherent to the internet itself.
Not every parent would necessarily want their child online for 3 - 5+ hours, especially doing things like participating in communities.
The issue with the internet as is currently is more about societal pressure. Every device for the last umpteen years has come with parental controls that include filtering out NSFW-esque material. If your position is that platforms such as FB should also include these sorts of parental controls I agree, but if your position is that we should restrict kids access to the internet as a whole because they might see a boob, then I wholeheartedly disagree.
I think among people who grew up with the internet, there's less assumption that things are true just because someone said or wrote them. People can and do lie constantly on the internet and without evidence it's not necessarily worth believing.
That there's some "news" outlet just blatantly lying and making things up, even if it looks to be made "professionally" is not surprising to a younger person.
-----------
For personal anectdata:
I'm late 20s and had virtually unsupervised internet access and my own personal computer from about age 8 or so, as my father brought home old parts from work and let me tinker/assemble something, and they didn't watch me too closely. (early DSL adoption meant I wasn't limited for long by speeds, either).
I pirated and played all the violent games, I downloaded lots of porn, and while I was never into "shock"/watching real death/gore, the nature of the internet was such that you were going to run across plenty of it if you spent enough time browsing, I certainly saw a lot.
I turned out to be a fine, reasonably well-adjusted adult, as did most of the friends I know who grew up similarly.
I don't know all the details of their sex lives, but I'm not aware of any winding up with unrealistic expectations from porn. Always seemed like an action movie. Exciting, but not "real".
Most of the shock stuff felt like it just made me more cautious. "That guy got one whack in the head and he died!" was a better argument against getting in a fight than the threat of parental/school punishment is. Same regarding a lot of other potential teenage risk-taking behavior, like reckless driving or getting exceptionally drunk. Watch enough people die or ruin their lives at something and you're a lot more cautious about it.
-----------
To be clear, I'm not suggesting that it's a net positive for kids to view those things at a young age. I'm just not sure that the harm is as large or uniform as people making moral panic claims often make, either.
Also, something like a third of people lose their virginity before 16 (although it's declining) and the median age is ~17 in the US. A lot of your peers were having real-life sex when you ran across porn for the first time. Worrying about them watching porn when plenty of them are having sex.....I don't know it makes much sense at that point.
-----------
Looking back on that time, I'm primarily concerned with how easily I was talking with random strangers in great depth than the content I was watching. While there are some internet friends from old forums and chatrooms I've kept in touch with for 15-20 years now, that I could get to know random strangers like that as a preteen obviously had potential risks. Worked out well for me and I found great communities and interests, but still.
I grew up on the internet. I first connected with I was 11. I was first online by myself soon thereafter. I practiced writing on the internet while hanging out on the internet. I made friends on the internet. I made mistakes on the internet. I lost friends on the internet. I learned about Linux and programming on the internet. I got a job on the internet. All of this happened before I was 16. There is an old joke, one that I took to heart as a child, "On the internet, nobody knows you're a dog". On the internet, nobody knew (or at least cared) that I wasn't an adult. People accepted my patches, took my advice, flamed my half-baked ideas, and overall treated me as an equal.
As a young adult I started internet companies over the internet with business partners I met on the internet. I met love interests on the internet. I found new music leading to concerts, festivals, and road trips on the internet. I learned about Magic: the Gathering strategy, met a lot of friends, and coordinated cross-continent travel over the internet with people I had only interacted with via IRC.
> Maybe I'm prude or naive but I remember vividly when I first saw a pornographic movie at like around 17. It really shook me at the time. I wasn't traumatized or anything but it made a strong impact on me.
People are different. Maybe I'm a degenerate. I grew up watching The Simpsons and Beavis and Butthead. In middle school, friends would trade porno mags. A friend had the premium cable channels with "Skin-a-max" (Cinemax) playing late nights. When I first got online (at 11 years old), I had two priorities: porn and learning how to hack like I saw in some movies (Wargames, Ferris Bueler's Day Off).
Finding porn was easy since the "filters" were mostly someone who largely didn't care configuring a default search engine or maybe a DNS blacklist. Once I knew "search engine", finding more search engines that weren't filtered was easy. A couple queries about how filtering works and I knew enough to configure a different DNS resolver. It's not like I went looking for Pokemon tips and found hardcore XXX action.
In trying to learn about hacking, I stumbled onto ESR's "Hacker Howto". I took it to heart, printed it out, and pasted sections on my bedroom wall. "The world is full of fascinating problems waiting to be solved. No problem should ever have to be solved twice. Boredom and drudgery are evil. Freedom is good. Attitude is no substitute for competence." I kept this as a mantra. I took the "Basic Hacking Skills" section as a formula. Python, C, Lisp, Perl, Java. Check. Check. Check. Check. Check. Learn to use a *nix? Done. I never was especially good at red team offensive security, but "how to hack" put into a search bar changed my life for the better.
> These days I expect that most teens experience this at like 12yo on their smartphones. Last week I was linked a reddit video of some guy dying in absolutely gruesome circumstance due to an industrial accident. And then there's the constant influx of disinformation. Did you know that Hydroxychloroquine cures HIV? I saw a Youtube video claiming just that yesterday.
At least in my day, we learned skepticism early on the internet. Everyone can be an asshole and most accounts would troll you. Getting razzed for your naivete in a chat room or message board was a rite of passage. Bullshit comes in a lot of flavors, and some people needed to taste the rainbow and while others were quicker on the pickup.
I could never deny others the chance to gain what I have gained by restricting their ability to access the internet.
I grew up with uneducated parents who are susceptible to believing bullshit peddled by cult leaders. I lived in their business, without access to other people since we lived in a business area with no other residents.
Access to the internet was the only way I was able to interact with educated adults, and I attribute it to as the main reason for my economic and social success as an adult.
There was also lots of gore/pornography/other explicit stuff, although social media was more limited to instant messengers and photo/video content of yourself was not a thing yet. But the upside was almost limitless with the access to all the information, experts, and ability to interact with someone you can learn something from.
I survived, so maybe there are missing stories from people who didn’t. I learned lots of skills used every day for work and never did anything I’m ashamed or or criminal.
But with my own kids, I protect them more than I protected myself. I wonder about the paradox of whether I would have changed anything in my chaotic youth and whether I’m stunting my kids by sheltering them. But there’s YouTube videos of behedding that I don’t want to risk my kids’ mental health.
I feel like the paradise I envisioned after reading Heilein and Dickson and Stephenson is here now and I hate it. Now spend my time in the digital Galt’s Gulch.
Young people are vulnerable to social media, and your point still stands, but I am also under the impression that it has impacted previous generations to a far greater extent, breaking their link to reality altogether.
Also, the gamification of many things. Even HN karma. The thrill of watching the upvotes roll in! (even now...)
Now the internet has been delivered right into their pockets and they aren't prepared for it. They see a video about ballet boxes being stuffed, and of course they believe it. Their friend Gladys shared it on facebook, of course it's real!
Reject a failed society. It's okay to be an individual, you don't need to be part of the collective.
Yes, parenting is not in vogue, and that's the problem. People do not know how to parent. It almost seems like many people are treating them like pets.
"Planes are an outrage! Imagine if you proposed a system that required hours of everyone's time, cost them hundreds of dollars, forced them to sit in cramped positions, and subjected them to invasive scans and searches of their personal materials."
"How are schools allowed! They literally imprison our kids for upwards of 7 hours a day, feed them substandard food, and subject them to Orwellian surveillance, exorbitant record-keeping, cruel social hierarchies, and a stress-inducing grading system akin to a dystopian social credit system."
I'm not saying the downsides aren't in fact downsides. They are. But you can't accurately assess the whole picture without taking the upsides into account, too.
"""
There's another side to this, though. Letting kids roam the internet can give ones who might otherwise be doomed to become misfits an opportunity to find community. Being a queer kid pre-Internet, for example, sucked, and the Web rolling out to households changed a lot of kids' lives. And we have a poor cultural memory of what that experience used to be like, because, before the rise of online communities, a big part of being queer - especially being a queer kid - was being subjected to systematic erasure.
I'm not sure how you balance those two things. My sense, though, is that the balance was better 20, 25 years ago, when the Internet had more small, individualized communities. Most of them have since been squashed by the rise of the social media oligopoly.
"""
I don't know if the downsides are worse for Facebook or Twitter (engineered for eyeballs and ad clicks), than forums, or where Discord lies on the spectrum.
They're clearly worse. Forums don't have algorithms constantly running trying to hijack your brain stem to keep you scrolling and clicking links...
"Like email, social news sites can be dangerously addictive. So the latest version of Hacker News has a feature to let you limit your use of the site. There are three new fields in your profile, noprocrast, maxvisit, and minaway. (You can edit your profile by clicking on your username.) Noprocrast is turned off by default. If you turn it on by setting it to "yes," you'll only be allowed to visit the site for maxvisit minutes at a time, with gaps of minaway minutes in between. The defaults are 20 and 180, which would let you view the site for 20 minutes at a time, and then not allow you back in for 3 hours. You can override noprocrast if you want, in which case your visit clock starts over at zero."
From a teenager's perspective, Instagram and TikTok are a lot worse for your mental health than say, Snapchat and iMessage.
In addition, for the queer community example - I'd say the perfect parallel for today would be Discord. Anyone can find a community and make friends on Discord, but it's probably not 5% as damaging to mental health because it's a communication based platform
I was on the internet communicating with friends and strangers on forums/message boards, IRC, AIM, and pre-feed Facebook well before the news feed was the default model. The "stalker feed", as it was known in 2006(?) when it was first launched, totally changed things, both in terms of the volume and ease of scrolling through content and the kinds of "news" that would be brought to your attention.
Something that sticks out in my memory of when Facebook's feed launched (I was in college at the time) was the additional pressure surrounding the "relationship status" field. Suddenly it wasn't just people who actively looked up your profile who might notice that you were "In a relationship with X", instead the act of updating it was broadcast to hundreds of people. Low stakes for adults, perhaps, but genuinely stressful for teenagers!
I have and have had internet in my house since I was 5-10. And I'd have to say: I'm still a misfit, social pariah, currently with no friends. Ironically the most respect (I mean this in the most basic sense of respect) I get from other humans is on here. But things were better when I was younger and worse now that I am 31. I'm not misremembering having more friends when I had places to go and do things in person, I definitely did. And these days I find it increasingly difficult to talk to people who have ever shrinking attention spans. Why is meme speak becoming pervasive in spoken language? Even when I call my mother she can't put down her Facebook or emails for a few minutes to talk. We used to be close. She says she has no time for anything. She's a book publisher and doesn't have time to read the one or two articles I send her every 6 months or so. Even when they are strictly about her field of work. She reads the first paragraph and says she got the "gist", which means we can't talk about it because she has no idea what the other 20 pages said, nor does she care because... well "haven't you seen the top reddit post today. I can't believe (random person) said (random comment) to (random other person)"
To me so many people have just become very boring. I mean what's worth saying/reading that takes 3-5 seconds, really? It's not that I think the internet or online social communication is all bad, or course it's not, but in my experience the bad does outweigh the good. And with suicide and depression rates rising beyond a standard deviation in gen z girls it's hard to feel as if it were worse from them in the past.
Look at HN - how many commenters do you personally recognize, except for the ones that are popular because they're part of YC (so for things outside of this discussion forum) or because they also submit articles they're written (so again for things outside of this forum)?
I probably recognize maybe 10 people, and with the way this discussion forum is designed, I recognize them despite the software, not because of it.
These days I never recognize a single username on any forum (HN and Reddit, mostly), even tiny sub-reddits. The culture there is created by the masses, so there are plenty of in-jokes only because tens of thousands of people repeat them every week.
Twitter is the closest I have to a site where I recognize a stranger's voice and opinions. But that's typically one-sided -- even in small hobbiest groups, it tends to be the well-known producers talking to everyone else.
It would be 0 for me.
Twitter is better for me in that way, but because is only short interactions, it's not like I'm close to them.
With forums it was way better, for me at least. It felt like family, and in 1 forum I was, we actually had like a 'newbie adoption' thing. With many people there, we actually ended up being internet friends, while on Twitter we might be more like acquaintances.
Anecdotally, it seems like the older generations are some of the worst offenders when it comes to this stuff. The stereotype is of two millennials sitting at a restaurant and both spending the entire meal staring at their phones. While that does happen, I think it's actually a lot more common now for older people to behave like this, maybe because they've had less time to develop any form of social or psychological resistance.
I think we need an evolution of social etiquette to account for this brave new world of self-absorption and rudeness. Pulling out your phone while in the middle of a conversation is incredibly rude, but people do it constantly, without a second thought, in both personal and professional contexts. It should be acceptable to kindly but firmly shame people for this kind of anti-social behavior, just like we'd shame people (perhaps not so kindly) if they started spitting in everyone's drinks or being blatantly cruel to others. I'm not trying to claim moral superiority, as I'm as guilty as anyone of doing it on occasion, but I'd honestly be happy if the person I'm with would say "put that thing away and pay attention to what I'm saying you dick!".
I got internet access I could use regularly when I was around 12.
Things were less developed then ~2002 and I didn't have FB until 2007 so maybe it's not directly comparable to the modern web, but the information access was amazing.
There was so much available to read and learn and most importantly, it helped with unknown unknowns.
When you're isolated like that and you don't live in a community of people that can introduce you to new things it's really hard to find where to even look on the map of interesting ideas. You don't know what exists. I wouldn't have been able to learn about computers, wouldn't have eventually been able to come out to the bay area as early as I did. I think people don't realize how the internet frees people that don't otherwise have a personal connection to someone who knows things.
My case isn't even that exceptional (my dad is an MD and smart, he was just the first in his family to really succeed so didn't know how to navigate a lot of the social class stuff) - someone who truly grew up in poverty would have even less access to things via their personal network.
At least for me, there is way more good with the web than bad.
The web and internet access may drive most of humanity to tribal motivated reasoning and echo chambers, but for others it leads to better critical thinking, learning new ideas and arguments and changing your mind/becoming a better thinker.
The upside potential is still there and huge - it's easier to learn than ever.
It just didn't fix the fact that the average person is not well suited to take advantage of it.
It has raised awareness like never before.
It has provided an income for some.
It allows new peer groups not available locally
It provides a safer space to interact with strangers.
Where we got it wrong was connecting these profiles to real life names. That has ruined people's lives.
Japan sure as hell isn't perfect socially but they demonstrate that the source of social problems may be found in the mirror collectively and not in new technology.
(and I wouldn't say the social networks where profiles don't need to be connected to real names are necessarily any better)
Sure people can change their nicknames, but people change their real names too. I've gone by three different 'real' names throughout my life. That may not be super common, but people getting married and changing their name at least once is certainly not rare. The way I see it, a 'real' name is only more real than the others insofar as it's the name the government uses for you. But that sort of realness isn't relevant for social purposes. For social purposes, the 'realest' name is the name people call you.
Sure, it's possible to stay in touch with a long list of monikers and sometimes even not much more difficult, but (going back to the OP I responded to) it's possible and often no more difficult to ruin people's lives across pseudonymous services too. Lack of real name is probably more of an impediment to the casually interested old friend than the concerted hate campaign.
I'm not sure a teenager has the same value. Anyone under 18 shouldn't have real identifying names them.
When facebook came out you had people isolated into networks of schools. Those structures provided better protections and freedom. The transition to fully public with forced real names made facebook into something not for kids but great for older folks.
It's hard and slow work to gain populist support for socially progressive policy. We wouldn't be talking about this stuff were it not for the truths presented to us by the people it affects most profoundly.
The article explicitly covers this and shows a net negative. So saying there are positive effects isn’t very helpful as any gains are more than offset by negatives.
I think your argument is better through quantification. As I don’t think anyone is making the case that social media doesn’t have any benefits at all, the argument is that the negatives outweigh the benefits.
Of course, I think it’s easier to quantify the negatives than positives. How do I quantify the positive effect that offsets the probably correlated increase in preteen girl hospitalizations? [0]
[0] sorry trying to find the easiest citation for the graph in Lukiakoff and Haidt’s book Coddling of America’s Youth [1] https://livingonparr.wixsite.com/livingonparr/single-post/20...
Studies have shown that disclosing information about oneself is an intrinsically rewarding experience [0]. Social media offerings provide a platform for sharing information easily with a large audience, which activates reward mechanisms in the brain. People use social media because it makes them feel good, which is probably the reason for their explosive growth over the last decades.
Social media offers a way to stay connected with people, or at least feel connected, without having to put in much effort. When you open the Facebook or Instagram application, it is immediately filled with recent pictures and status updates of friends and relatives. Not only does this provide you with information, it might also motivate you to contact those people again, which will then reinforce the feeling of friendship. It has been shown that having an active social circle is predictive of lower stress, increased happiness, positive attitude, and self-assessed health [1].
Patients suffering from serious mental illnesses can self-organize into peer-to-peer support groups on social media platforms. Reported benefits include greater social connectedness, feelings of belonging, and being able to share personal stories and coping mechanisms. Through this empowerment, patients can challenge the stigma associated with their condition; and potentially even improve their situation by learning from peers, and gaining insight into important health decisions and possible remedies. If peer support proves insufficient, patients can motivate each other to seek professional help. [2]
Social media platforms are one of the most accessible forms of long-distance communication. Among the reasons for this, is that they are free of charge, an account is set up in a matter of minutes, and communication is not limited geographically. Furthermore, social media enables certain groups of disabled people to communicate with individuals they are normally unable to reach. For example, deaf people usually communicate through sign language or written text. Since the number of sign language ``speakers" is low, written text is the most accessible way to communicate with others. For them, social media offers an accessible and efficient way to stay in touch with friends and relatives that are geographically far away. Christine Forsberg showed that social media use among the deaf and hard hearing increased their feeling of empowerment, when empowerment is measured in self-efficacy, self-esteem, and self-determination [3].
Happiness, positive attitude, satisfaction, connectedness, and increased (mental) health can be assumed to provide positive utility, and thus promoting them is ethical from a utilitarian viewpoint. It is worth noting however, that there is a flipside to most of the effects covered above (see section \ref{sec:negative_effects}), and it is unclear whether the cumulative utility of all positive and negative consquences is positive or not.
[0]: Diana Tamir and Jason Mitchell. “Disclosing information about the self is intrinsically rewarding”. In: Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America109 (May 2012), pp. 8038–43. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1202129109.
[1]: Suwen Lin et al. “Social network structure is predictive of health and wellness”. In: PLOS ONE 14.6 (June 2019), pp. 1–17. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0217264. url: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0217264.
[2]: J. A. Naslund et al. “The future of mental health care: peer-to-peer support and social media”. In Epidemiology and Psychiatric Sciences 25.2 (2016), pp. 113–122. doi: 10.1017/S2045796015001067.
[3]: Christine Forsberg. “The Empowerment of Deaf Cochlear Implant Users Through Social Media in the UK, the Netherlands, and Croatia”. MA thesis. July 2020. url: http://arno.uvt.nl/show.cgi?fid=152367.
Also, social media has been used to organize riots in the Arab spring, Hong Kong, etc.
> or at least feel connected, without having to put in much effort.
I have experienced the other side of this, so to speak, having someone think that they have made a connection with me or contacted me etc. just because they made a post or sent a tweet/text assuming that I'd see it. I don't always see these things or spend my time logged into these sites.
There are some people (including family members) that simply no longer 'talk' to me but think that they are 'always telling me' things. I've been caught out with things like phone number changes, address changes because someone has moved home and think they have 'told me' because they did some random tweet to 'everyone' some time back.
There are two sides to 'staying connected', social media (generally speaking) has made these connections rather one-sided. Staying connected should be more like a gentle came of catch-and-throw but instead it's more akin to beig stood in front of one of those machines that fling balls at you relentlessly regardless if you are ready or not.
I hate it.
E-mail? Have you heard of it? Signal? Other IM platforms. And you continue on selling social media as means of friendly communication which is not true. There's gazillion alternatives but those were all eaten up by the giants. All those use cases and people that you mentioned used mailing lists before and were doing just fine.
> And you continue on selling social media as means of friendly communication which is not true.
No, I do not. The section about negative effects is much longer, and the conclusion drawn at the end also damns social media. In a scientific paper, you have to present both sides.
I just included the positive effects section here, because somebody asked.
Trust me, with trillion dollar corporations pushing their propaganda nonstop and self-important, self-appointed lords of industry convincing themselves every little tweak to their website is world-changing, the "upsides" need no signal boost from me.
Sorry to be a bit of a downer, but we absolutely should be talking about the downsides instead of listening to over-powerful CEOs tell us how great their crack is.
Also, you forgot that planes emit CO2, which is not just a subjective judgment, but is objectively bad for our planet in large quantities. ;)
The happily took credit for the upsides and for the longest time, like almost a decade, laughed out of the room anyone talking about the downsides.
Such people are still in charge of these fucking companies.
apologies but it sounds like PR from the tobacco industry before they got regulated. wonder how we'll look at this in 10-15 years time. the "let's listen to both sides" argument has no place on something this evil and damaging (not just to children) imo.
I think I just got hung up on a technicality in your argument.
Planes and schools are by design positive things.
Social media by design is at best neutral.
Social media is designed to benefit its owners and its customers (ad sellers). At best social media is designed to entertain its users, but the big caveat is that it does it through whatever means necessary. And that's a big caveat. Because at the end of the day, it's an online casino. And we regulate casinos to hell and back.
I feel like you're dead on for air travel. I absolutely hate it, and wish it were drastically reduced.
The very fact that we consider weighing the 'upsides' of something is if we give it, or part of it, legitimacy in the first place - legitimacy that may not be deserved. I'm silent on the topic of social media, but we wouldn't even begin to consider the 'upside' of murder or rape or defamation, for instance - and that's not because people in the past have done that analysis for us, it's because collective experience has shown the analysis isn't worth doing - that the utilitarian analysis is the wrong method to apply to the question, just as there are good and bad methods in science or philosophy.
I don't think you need young in that sentence. I see social media's negative effects on all age groups.
I see it in my own life (I'm 30): somehow, I feel compelled to keep track of politics, and I watch political shows way too much. I don't learn anything from it 98% of the time. After I watch/read about that topic, I can't concentrate on anything for long, I want to know more. The moment I wake up, I reach to the mobile to read the news. Then, I visit some meme sites, then I go to Hacker News. When I don't want to wake up yet, I repeat.
As a defense mechanism, I deactivated Facebook, I only post programming content on Twitter and I aggressively mute anyone who brings political tweets in my feed. I disabled notifications from most apps. I set up content blocker extensions so I don't accidentally wander to sites I don't want to visit. When I visit YouTube, I intentionally focus on the task at hand and try to not let the algorithm distract me (which is hard, because their recommendations almost always resonate with me). It works "okay", but I still didn't break the habit and I need strong self-control.
I see it also with my mother and sister, they are approx 60 and 35. They never get bored of scrolling through their feeds, they can't focus on anything else. They also often feel bad because their lives don't match what they see on the web. They make up a persona online that don't match their reality (which I see).
I'm not advocating for banning these things for adults, but I'd raise this issue to the people who read my comment: most adults behave very similarly to children, so observe your behavior and adapt.
It's hard, there's no immediate downside to checking your phone or app.
I kind of think stuff like infinite scroll, gamification of social media needs some kind of regulation. I don't think we have the power to fight for our selves against these companies
I hear what you're saying but I'm pretty sure drugs (like meth) are much worse, we just manage to keep kids away from them, whereas Internet is given to them.
For paragraph 2, Sugar, TV, organised religion, the Boy/Girl Scouts and comic books all satisfy at least some of your criteria. None has been banned yet.
Similarly, many American parents would rush to sign up to a service that let them do those things. Plenty pay for Life360 and similar just for some of those "features". Far from being illegal, many jurisdictions encourage it.
I don't think social media is a force for good. But let's not pretend we really care about the kids or privacy or mental health.
I actually think that many parents (sadly) prefer a kid that sits at home on the computer and is monitorable and docile (a side effect of depression). The alternative is to actually take them places or to let them go unattended, neither of which parents seem happy to swallow.
Unfortunately, laws can only do so much with out invading the privacy of citizens so it's really going to take a large campaign similar to anti-smoking ads in the 90s to get the message out about the cons and parents will HAVE to put their foot down. Although, it seems like a certain portion of our society thinks children should be allowed to make decisions themselves nowadays so I expect backlash at the thought of parents actually stopping their kids from harming themselves.
If you're going to apply laws that strip rights away from people you have to have a cutoff somewhere. Unless you're suggesting a blanket ban on social media for everyone.....
I find it impossible to take the arguments for a ban seriously when they were recycled from D&D, heavy metal, video games, and goth and emo music.
Don't most teenagers spend most of their time socializing with other teenagers?
My pre-internet teenage "social networking" was full of traumatic times. Has that not been the case of teenagers forever?
I guess this study is reporting an measurable increase above the "normal" amount? That seems like it would be very hard to measure.
> nothing gets deleted
Mean people say and do equivalent things on social media as in person. Although, I must say, this lockdown is probably a blessing to those who are consistently bullied at school, as now they're able to at least physically avoid them.
The toxic communities that exist have a mixture of no-clue 11 year olds with minimal parental supervision (or parental supervision that's failing) through to young adults who found a community that can reflect their feelings back.
Eg: the proana/edtwt communities are clearly children just working things out to young adults getting followings and interaction with a community. It sickens me to see a post from a 23 yr old spouting how to hide ED from your parents by doing the following... Or using subliminals to change the shape of your nose.
What? Yes, it did, that's literally what it did do.
Phillip Morris used its propaganda to lie to people about health risks and "benefits" of smoking, sold an addictive product to addicts, and used its resulting people power to subvert democratic decisions.
It didn't do this with transistor technology, sure. But cigarettes have hugely more Daily Active Users than Twitter, still today.
You could argue that "airplanes are no different than hot-air balloons" on the basis that they're both aerial modes of transportation, and you'd be right in the strict sense that you've framed the debate, but you'd be ignoring the original point and steering the debate away from anything that might be considered insightful. Frankly, I don't have any interest in engaging in that kind of discourse (and also it's generally against the spirit of this forum).
Then of course if you compare social media interaction with in-person interaction you may conclude that social media = bad, but the causality may (in part) be the other way around, as the article says:
> “Those who feel worse may turn to social media for solace or community,” Dr Amy Orben, research fellow at Emmanuel College, University of Cambridge, said of the research.
In my experience, yes. When I was real life social isolated, stopping the online interactions was destructive each time I tried. (I tried couple of time till I realized that yes, it does count as interaction that I need.)
Someone once commented on how we can't go for a drive in the car without having some music on to distract us from thinking. I wonder if we don't want to be alone with our thoughts.
Not always the case I don't think(your over all point still stands though). An anectodtal example, I've been thrown some racial & very insensitive slurs at sports bar/convenience store late night, but seeing the person/the state the person throwing the slur is in (intoxicated) can make it way easier to just brush it off. Being thrown an insult in say, StackOverflow by someone that have provable trackrecord of excellence can be quite more demoralizing.
The absence/existence of additional information about the person throwing the slur can make the whole difference, and that can exist/not exist on both internet and real life.
Not sure if I'm the only doing that but in many, many cases I just ignore the reddit red envelope (I open it in new tab and close that tab instantly with Cmd+W), I choose to which comments of mine to answer directly (if the case) by going straight to them, so to speak, and see if there's anything in there.
Granted, I'm not strong enough to do that all the time, but it helps, nonetheless.
As a side note, the differing trends of boys and girls after adolescence is really interesting.
> However, it recognised that girls' self-esteem and wellbeing stabilises as they move into their late teens, whereas it continues to drop for boys
Will have to read the source material to see if they propose any causes for that
I downvoted all the popular comments here which were ready to agree with the causation despite the research making no comment on that at all: the complete lack of critical thinking is why this gets to be the chosen headline. Pure clickbait.
One child (reserved/shy) - has had probably more negative impact than anything else in her life. From the very first access to tech has continually found opportunity to find toxic, negative communities (hentai, r/teenagers, edtwt, sh, bdsm). Any attempt to reduce results in hiding and lying. The speed that a kid can change window or swipe away is ridiculous. Literally can't find a way that tech has benefitted her.
Another child (shy too), enamored with anything that teaches her more (tik tok, youtube, etc).
The big difference is that the second child isn't looking for community. The first child is looking for community but can only find community in echo chambers that reflect back teenage angst, and those echo chambers run deep.
I can only hope that the first child grows into an well adjusted adult, and while not social media, toxic and negative online communities are just simply too easier to slide into.
I have been working on a more intimate, less addictive, social media and messaging application that I hope can be part of a trend of new apps that help solve this problem. I believe one of the features in current apps that makes them so addictive, for teens especially, is the endless stream of content they have access to - they can view hours and hours of videos from celebrities they don't personally know, content creators they have never met, brands, etc. If we can scale back the endless stream of content (which leads to doom-scrolling), that might be one approach to helping limit screen time without sacrificing the meaningful connection to friends and family that social media enables.
I've been trying to block social media and have finally managed to do it (DoH was a pain in the ass to block). Although I can still access websites on mobile, working on that.
I quit Imgur after years and I don't understand why I was even going there. Now everything looks dumb and uninteresting. Truly like a drug addiction.
He's not on social media, but does play games online with others.
I'm working really hard to enforce a sort of "If it isn't positive, you don't feel good about it... time to not do it for a while / find another game / people to play with."
I'm trying to teach him to evaluate and shape his own experiences online and make choices based on that.
Similarly, the headline here says "Social media damages teenagers' mental health, report says" while the body of the article notes:
“Those who feel worse may turn to social media for solace or community,” Dr Amy Orben, research fellow at Emmanuel College, University of Cambridge, said of the research.
“It’s not a vacuum, it works both ways."
[1] https://www.inc.com/minda-zetlin/quitting-facebook-research-...
It's hard to do it for adults and it's hard or impossible to do for children and teenagers.
Also, as with everything, everyone's experience will be different. In food example, some people can manage their calories better than other. Some are easily addicted or depressed. It's the same with social media or internet content in general.
Heavy social media use was linked to negative wellbeing and self-esteem, regardless of a young person's mental state, with more girls experiencing feelings of depression and hopelessness.
“Those who feel worse may turn to social media for solace or community,” Dr Amy Orben, research fellow at Emmanuel College, University of Cambridge, said of the research.
“It’s not a vacuum, it works both ways."
Contrast that with the title of this post, which tries to establish a clear causal link from social media use to poor mental health.
The funniest part for the entire thing is that they spent a lot of time of how do we solve this problem of social media. There was a lot of just weird things brought up in the documentary itself. But the real answer was actually in the interviews in the credit, which is where it just says to get off of social media.
It did not feel like we're trying to be honest, rather they wanted to be controversial.
Social media should probably be banned for under 18
Social media is damaging to adults, I wonder why nobody has put a limit by law to younger people.
(Sorry for the short comment but I’m trying out saying a lot with a little)
The constant stream of news and social media… it doesn't have a calming effect. People, in general, seem more angry too.
It's not hard to imagine what this sort of exposure does to a young person's brain and attention span. You are essentially creating addicts and social media users all show withdrawl symptoms of any prolonged psychotropic drug use:
- irritability
- depression
- physical restlessness
- overwhelming need for redose
- tolerance build up
Something has to be done. We cannot rely on the generosity or moral guidelines of the companies that produce these apps well aware of the link between serotonin and screen time.
I'm all for small government but this is a matter of public health. We needed regulation, and we need regulation, and will need regulation.
A depressing number of people here don't seem to have read it. But then neither it seems has the person who wrote it and added the headline.
I can’t imagine the pain kids must be since they feel forced to participate in order to “socially” exist.
I have learned to avoid Facebook, and barely ever look at Twitter.
It has resulted in a drastic improvement in my general mood.
You will be harshly judged on social media and treated with contempt.
I use Facebook, everyone (that's people I know in person) is extremely nice to me on there, never got any contempt at all. We share pictures and funny memes and plan events on there. I used Facebook to reconnect with a childhood friend who I lost touch with and now we talk all the time. My husband did the exact same thing with Myspace a decade before.
(tl;dr it's science by press release, has various methodological weaknesses and does not account for a likely bidirectional relationship of causation, i.e. a classic correlation/causation confusion)
If you want to leave social especially as a teenager you have you try really hard as you fall into something called fomo(fearing of missing out)
I watch it damage everyone I know as well.
Biden is already poised to encourage the DOL to adopt these more directly: https://www.jwnenergy.com/article/2021/1/27/biden-may-have-t...
Really?
Teenagers are addicted to social media and adults get addicted to news media.
Both are based on fear mongering and the fear of missing out. Do you not see that underneath the problem is the same?
But I do also believe those little notifications can be addictive.
Besides, even if life itself /is/ damaging in general, that doesn't explain the teen suicide rate etc, or any of the findings from this report specifically pertaining to teens.
I think there is a missing institution that should exist to protect people from market effects.
The raw edge of the market is driving a wedge into people's lives. People need to be protected but they're just a few decisions away from loss.
Society doesn't do enough for the losers of the world, it's a winner take all system.
It's almost like there's this gravitational well of depressed anxious people, and they don't want anyone to escape.
Addiction is a a real, serious problem with drugs that effect the brains reward system (opioids) or prediction of reward (amphetamines). It is not a real problem associated with using online forums using a computer.
But prediction of reward might very well be a concise description of the drive behind social media use.
Obviously it's not. I gave examples of two drugs and their direct mechanisms of action.
>But prediction of reward might very well be a concise description of the drive behind social media use.
No, that's a description of a living mammal brain. Addiction is when that system is hijacked directly, not when it is doing it's normal thing in response to stimuli.
The distinction I'm trying to get across here is that normal stimuli that are just perceptions are not intrinsically addictive and when you claim one is there is a need for evidence of the claim.
Social Media isn't the boogeyman. It's that no matter how hard you try, your life will never be as good as what is usually portrayed through these channels. You are swarmed with people who lead far better lives than you do, have way more fun than you do, and so on and so forth. Your only escapism at home, in a pandemic, is to go on the internet where you're spammed with these successful people (posers or not, doesn't matter) selling you things by showing off what they have.
So no, it's not social media that damages teenagers mental health. It's worse than that. Ignorance is bliss? There's an argument to be made for that.
It starts before they even hit teens. That YouTube channel of the kid unpacking toys and other things is the kind of early stage precursor to things to come. The kids watching this viscerally live through him for some years, until it dawns on them that hey, wait a minute, he has all those toys and I don't have anything.
It's no wonder exercise makes things better - it's a great distraction from the illnesses of the world. Assuming that children are somehow not aware of it, or are not susceptible to it, is being naive at best.
We don't outgrow that. Adults are very status conscious too.
If social media does indeed lead to less exercise as research suggests-- which, as you explicitly agree would make things worse-- it is a boogeyman.
Social media takes every challenge that kids face and amplifies it.
My anecdotal experience is two daughters whose normal teenage challenges have been made worse through social media.
Social media could have been a utopian technology bubbling up unique experiences to cultivate hobbies and interests in the young. Instead the algorithms cater to our base instincts and is amplifying the risk of turning the next generation into mindless addicts.
I don't see why any kind of urbanization or improved communication/infrastructural technology wouldn't have this effect. The more people you can reach, the more people you have to compete with.