> since spread via social media is no longer restricted to specific locations such as local communities or school environments spread via social media is no longer restricted to specific locations such as schools or towns.
A large number of young people across different countries are affected, with considerable impact on health care systems and society as a whole. Since spread via social media is no longer restricted to specific locations such as local communities or school environments, spread via social media is no longer restricted to specific locations such as schools or towns.
> Since spread via social media is no longer restricted to specific locations such as local communities or school environments, spread via social media is no longer restricted to specific locations such as schools or towns.
The sequence "spread via social media is no longer restricted to specific locations" appears in exactly that sequence twice in that sentence. If you cut the redundancy down to "spread via social media is no longer restricted to specific locations", that doesn't make sense either since social media was never restricted to specific locations.
I'm not saying it's definitely written entirely by GPT, but mindlessly repeating sequences is very GPT-like behavior. Maybe academics are using GPT to pad their word count? Or maybe the authors and their editors just need more coffee?
They used the phrase "spread via social media" and pointed out that spread isn't locally restricted anymore twice for no reason. They're also using circular reasoning. A more concise way to phrase this would have been:
> since [the images and videos] are shared via social media, spread is no longer restricted to specific locations such as local communities or school environments.
https://www.reddit.com/r/fakedisordercringe/
It's status as illness though, let alone mass-illness is dubious at best.
Someone researching the same thing has this to say
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2021/nov/16/the-unknown-is...
>Olvera’s research has not gone down well in some quarters. “I’m frustrated,” she says. “I’ve tried to stop reading a lot of what is written out there.” She’s received “lots” of angry emails. “My colleagues have had a positive response to my research,” she says, “but I don’t know if it’s been perceived appropriately by the public. The last thing I would want is for my patients to walk away from this thinking that their disorder is fake or not worthwhile.”
>Much of the controversy arises from the misapprehension that doctors are accusing young people of faking Tourette’s for attention, or arguing that TikTok is giving people Tourette’s. Neither claim is true. “What the media has boiled it down to,” says Olvera, “is that if it’s not Tourette syndrome, it’s fake. But just because it’s not Tourette syndrome doesn’t mean it’s fake. This is a real condition. Even though it’s not typical Tourette’s, it’s very disruptive and stressful.”