> Clear and direct correlation between the rise in social media and teen mental health issues.
Correlation does not prove causation.
Correlation does not prove causation.
It’s claiming exactly that: certain social media as a cause of mental health deterioration among teens especially girls
But this isn't a debate, this is a decision. The agent is Meta. The field is their products. The goal is reduced teen mental health issues. And the buck stops with Zuckerberg.
"Correlation does not prove causation" alone is not an excuse to avoid an action. It is a principle that can be used to compare actions for how likely they are to achieve the goal, and so it must be combined with some other action and evidence that makes that other action appear more likely to work. Without that, then the action suggested by the correlation remains the action most likely to work, and so it must still be taken.
If, for whatever reason, Zuckerberg doesn't want these changes to be made, then he needs to either dole out resources to gather the evidence he demands and which may free him from them, or he needs to implement some other action which may turn out to work.
If he doles out the resources, and the evidence comes back and establishes causation, then he has to make the changes. It sucks for him, but the goal isn't to please Zuckerberg, it's to reduce teen mental health issues.
If he doles out the resources, and the evidence comes back failing to establish causation, then that's convenient for him. But he still has to try something else, because the goal is reduced teen mental health issues and it has not been achieved.
If he goes straight to implementing some other action, and it at least appears to work, then he doesn't have to make the changes he didn't want to make. That's great for him, and since teen mental health issues were reduced, he can put it behind him.
If he goes straight to implementing some other action, and it doesn't work, then still has to try something else, because the goal is reduced teen mental health issues and it has not been achieved.
And why does buck stop with Zuckerberg, not parents, school, govt. Why do under 13 have a smartphone? Is the usage monitored? Should Govt bring legislations on how much phone can be used for social media/video games by a child? Should bullying be handled at local level instead of a Corp controlling all?
Meta should keep the filters and actively develop more filters that users want and enjoy.
It can also create resources for parents to better deal with the risks of social media, the two are not in conflict.
Still, parents, due to various factors had to let their kids be kids, and fend for themselves.
The kids didn’t seem to suffer massive mental health issues though, things pretty much worked out in the end.
Fast forward, parents may be more overworked, or may be addicted to the same devices we’re discussing here, so things may be slightly worse, but we’re seeing massive mental health challenges (not solely as a result of insta etc…).
Parents are ill equipped to cope with this from my experience, companies are weaponizing their apps to draw eyeballs with a level of competency never seen before, we have few defences, it needs to be on the co. / gov.