It's the apps, which overcharge everyone's (not just kids!) brains, by algorithmically "mAxImiZinG eNgaGeMent"
It's time to ban them all. Okay that's a bit much. Ban all algorithmic feeds, all apps must adhere to strictly chronological feed of the strictly subscribed authors.
There, the phone addiction crisis solved.
I am part of the generation that grew up with MMORPG's from early childhood (I was about 9 years old when I made my first RuneScape account), but approaching 30, I don't game at all anymore for the exact same reasons I don't touch cannabis anymore. Instagram, Snapchat, TikTok, Facebook, it's all the same thing for teenagers. At a neurological level, these platforms are as highly addicting and neural-network-altering as actual psychoactive pharmaceuticals, legal or otherwise.
Paleolithic emotions, medieval institutions, and god-like technology is a combination that we're not nearly as well-adapted to as we think we are.
It's the apps, which corrode everyone's attention span. And unlike weed, I doubt there will be "algorithmic feed" dealers, because no one actually wants an algorithmic feed.
None of this exploration ever required or involved Facebook or other social media platform or highly immersive video game, save YouTube.
And to be clear, I'm no proponent of the state simply passing universal bans, or infringing upon privacy of adults with facial recognition requirements for using social media, this is a responsibility of parents, many of whom I fear themselves haven't been adequately warned about how addicting these platforms are.
I don't think DARE-style assemblies for both students and parents would be the worst idea to warn both groups about the risks of these platforms, provided they were done honestly, rather than being filled with hyperbole. It doesn't infringe upon anyone's rights, and wouldn't really "cost" anything, but would help educate those who might lack the awareness on the subject.
Yeah that's fair. Probably can't hurt anything with that. But it's hard to get the actual danger across.
> None of this exploration ever required or involved Facebook or other social media platform or highly immersive video game, save YouTube.
That's why I am gunning to limit these kind of platforms, specifically.
> It doesn't infringe upon anyone's rights, and wouldn't really "cost" anything,
Well it depends. If these assemblies worked, they would "cost" the platforms potential engagement and potential revenue. Which is kind of a pointless distinction, I just thought it's interesting
I agree with you. I would consider social media and games addictive. It's just that the SMS app on my phone isn't addictive. Telegram app, the Photo app also isn't.
> Paleolithic emotions, medieval institutions, and god-like technology is a combination that we're not nearly as well-adapted to as we think we are.
Agreed. But my paleolithic emotions aren't addicted to the radio waves of my phone, but to the TikTok app specifically.
I would also ban them globally, not just for kids but like I'm sure that would be a whole 'nother discussion.
Instead, tax ad impressions per day per user on a sliding scale that makes it quickly unprofitable to display more than a handful of ads and use the money to fund media literacy classes in schools. Restrict the number and types of advertising that can be shown to children and adolescents, like forbidding animated ads.
I think you're putting too much emphasis on The Algorithm. It's a problem, and I agree it's probably the worst offender, but similar problems were observed decades ago with children (and adults...) allowed to watch too many hours of uninterrupted TV. Cutting back to chronological feeds might improve some things but I don't think that's the root of the issue.
I would suggest the primary difference between then and now is accessibility. As a kid, my screen time was limited not just by my parents indulgence but the social pressure from using a shared device. Smart phones let you carry your personal distraction with you.
I agree they are a wonderful invention but I'm not sure grade school students need to be connecting to anyone, anywhere throughout the entire school day.
Yeah that's fair.
> I agree they are a wonderful invention but I'm not sure grade school students need to be connecting to anyone, anywhere throughout the entire school day.
Well to their friends in other classes ("Wanna go out after 3pm lesson").
Additionally, and socially, smart phones, if banned, would be instantly seen as a status symbol. And it would also accelerate strong anti-autority sentimentality. The kids won't understand it, hell adults wouldn't. So it's also the case that you can't really ban them without really adverse social effects.
Probably something we should be encouraging in our youth.
To quote a great man, we live in society. And it's better to work within a system and get to know it rather than it is to just hate it. And if the first experience of a large portion of youth is system beating them down, you can see how that's gonna grow a strong "tear it all down" mentality.
My family didn't have a TV growing up. (This was way before the Internet, when TV was king and HBO and cable were a status symbol.) Me and my siblings tried every argument in the book to get them to buy one, to no avail. Out of the loop on TV pop culture? Boo-hoo. Peers make fun of you for not having a TV? Too bad, so sad. The result was that I participated in more activities that engaged my body and brain. Aside from being bad at TV pop culture trivia from those decades, I turned out just fine.
At the end of they day, parents need to set the standards that they want their children to live by, and stick with them. Even today, a phone is a luxury that a kid doesn't really need, and will likely contribute to low attention span and cause them all manner of anxiety. Don't take my word for it; many studies will back me up.
I vaguely recall too students back in the era where our biggest distraction was MSN messenger and our university forums. They kept both off until late at night.
We're letting people experience the downsides of the attention economy when it's almost (if not entirely) too late to avoid the negatives.
Because social media is precisely in the short term benefit x long term risk that human brains are bad at conceptualizing. Same reasons for why we mandate belts in cars.
Hardly anyone in the "west" gets pulled over by police for seat belt checks (unlike say, India, China), yet nearly everyone still wears them, because they understand if they don't, they'll probably become a stain on the asphalt. I imagine if tomorrow, a law passed that seat belts no longer had to be worn, most people would still use them. Perhaps the regulation and enforcement are only needed initially when not everyone is educated on the long term risks.
I’d actually prefer HN and Reddit to be just chronological (or “newest comment” on the above-thread level), like traditional forums.
And they doomed a generation in the process
But seriously agreed, that's why I propose what I propose - when it's banned no-one can do it and no one can eat your lunch (*)
(*) Subject to exceptions, as the War on Drugs can attest, but I think it would work in this instance