Summary
A YouGov poll revealed that 77% of Germans support banning social media for those under 16, similar to a new Australian law.
The survey found that 82% believe social media harms young people, citing harmful content and addiction.
In Australia, the law fines platforms up to AUD 49.5 million (€30.5M) for allowing under-16s to create accounts, with enforcement trials set before implementation next year. Critics
Lots of people believe things not supported by science.
News at 11.
I mean science does show this generation has very high incidence of anxiety, depression, suicide etc. Not saying social media is all of it, but it’s probably a very big cause.
“Probably”
This is your definition of scientific?
Thanks for proving my point.
great account to follow regarding the science on the subject: https://ohai.social/@Garwboy/113554246823274751
Let’s remember the ban in Australia concerns platforms such as Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat, Reddit and X. Exemptions will apply to services such as YouTube, messenger kids, whatsapp, kids helpline and google classroom.
The account you provided starts by stating that “the most rigorous analysis” found little/no significant evidence , but fails to link to them. He immediately lumps together smartphone and social media, then goes on justifying the importance of both with arguments that clearly concern almost exclusively smartphones.
This ban is about social media, not smartphones altogether.
Garwboy’s arguments:
-
they let kids stay connected with friends, foster a community, allow coordination of activities: he’s talking about smartphones.
-
they allow access to school work, references, important resources: again, smartphones/the internet
-
they allow access to support, help and guidance from experienced and informed individuals and groups: this point I’ll give to him; as for years, Reddit has served that very purpose for me. Who knows what that site has become though.
-
he compares them to roads (roads kill children every year, but they save many lives, make the world go round,…): again this whole comparison is only valid for smartphones.
-
they are a refuge for children who experience abuse at home: this is probably true, but it is not an argument about how social media helps in these situations. I could say the same about drugs .
Which brings us to my point of view: social media are, for many, a drug. A bit of it can be good, fun and even sometimes make your like better, but we have to acknowledge the negative side, which in my opinion can have devastating effects in a person’s mental, especially when the mental is still in its forming stage.
but we have to acknowledge the negative side, which in my opinion […]
I don’t do opinions. Burnett (a neuroscientist) has linked many sources - maybe you just need to read a bit more.
Additionally, your claims about what’s “smartphones” and what’s “social media” are strange - my kids use Snapchat to communicate. Do you think they use SMS?? How old are your kids?
Look it’s my opinion from personal experience, just disregard it if it bothers you.
I read the whole series of posts but didn’t see them, I guess I needed to search some more - my bad.
I’m not saying social media doesn’t let you do all those things, I’m saying you don’t need it to do them.
I don’t have kids and never used Snapchat, but what does Snapchat provide that helps them communicate better than let’s say WhatsApp?
Edit: I went to dig on Burnett’s page for the links you tell me about. All I found was a radio interview of a doctor on radio Boston, an article from the Sunday times about Burnett’s book and an article on Wales online, also about the book.
Could you link me to the relevant articles I must have missed?
Edit 2: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7364393/ Found this article that combines different studies made on the subject. Around halfway through the page you will find the results of some of these studies and you will see the answer isn’t clear.
I don’t have kids
Yeah I think you should abstain from having opinions on what their generation is doing then. In the whole of human history no older generation has ever been correct regarding what the upcoming generation should or shouldn’t do.
The study you link says the exact same thing as Burnett does. It doesn’t support “social media is bad for kids”.
edit:
In all, the available meta-analytic evidence suggests that SNS use is weakly associated with higher levels of ill-being [14,17, 18, 19, 20] but also with higher levels of well-being [17,19], a result that suggests that ill-being is not simply the flip-side of well-being and vice versa, and that both outcomes should be investigated in their own right [11,39]. Finally, all meta-analyses reported considerable variability in the reported associations. For example, in the meta-analysis by Ivie et al. [14], the reported associations of SMU with depressive symptoms ranged from r = −.10 to r = +.33.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2352250X21001500
In the whole of human history no older generation has ever been correct regarding what the upcoming generation should or should not do
I may not be a scientist but I know enough about history that any statement that says “in the whole of human history…” and doesn’t finish with death or taxes is bullshit.
Was the older generation wrong when they told there kids not to do crack when it started becoming popular in the 80s? granted I’m pretty against the war on drugs but even if we do fully legalize we should still keep it away from kids because:
- It can be addictive and addiction and developing brains aren’t a good combination.
- It is a major decision with positives and negatives that a child can’t fully understand
Both of those are true , albeit to a far lesser extent, for social media.
-
This sounds good on paper until you realize that what is considered “social media” is up to whoever happens to hold that position. Even ignoring the fact that it’s unenforceable anyway, unless you require a real ID, wish is just straight up worse for all sorts of reasons.
The idea is nice, but actually putting it into law without opening the door to censorship and other side effects is just not plausible.
Edit: also, Everytime you read about a poll like this, ask yourself: what was the question they asked? Did it provide any context? Did it require any understanding of the actual underlying issues and laws? Or was it some variation of “think of the children”?
Even ignoring the fact that it’s unenforceable anyway, unless you require a real ID, wish is just straight up worse for all sorts of reasons.
It is possible to verify age using a real ID without sharing other details from that ID with a social media company with apps like https://www.yivi.app/en/
The politicians in charge of making the laws often lack the understanding needed to make privacy respecting laws. So it’s possible, it’s just not happening. They also listen to actual experts ready to little, but do listen to lobbyists.
This also doesn’t address the censorship side of the problems.
Just for a random example, literally the first thing I thought of: let’s say there’s a youth movement to affect climate change, or some other issue. They organize general protests, boycotts on “bad companies” and are starting to get somewhere (politically and affecting the bottom lines of these companies). This is coordinated using some online communication platform, think Reddit, lemmy or whatever (Facebook, whatever). Those that want it to “go away” can just include that in the list of sites that fall under thes “youth protection” laws.
Then there’s laws like that being extended it abused to do things that weren’t originally intended, which is also hard to safeguard against. Future legislation might extend the age range from 16 to 18, then to 21. With the list of blocked sites also growing conveniently alongside, and boom you got a nice censorship platform. Not saying that will happen, but making sure it can’t is what’s hard.
Libs will do anything but touch the corp :v
