Link: https://theconversation.com/can-social-media-bans-protect-young-peoples-mental-health-early-research-suggests-that-bans-arent-the-answer-291629

Based on the evidence, I’m not convinced that banning social media platforms will be an effective solution to the mental health crisis among young people today.

So what could work?

Supporting young people’s mental health is a complex endeavor that will require a combination of people, organizations and resources coming together.

I believe kids’ mental health would be better served by governments enforcing safety by default standards on social media platforms rather than outright bans. This means that the highest security and privacy options are in place by default so that minors still on a platform are protected. For instance, accounts would be unsearchable by default, so users would have to intentionally make a profile change to be found by people they don’t know in real life.

My opinion is yeah probably, but only because we don't regulate social media to the point its pretty much mind control through advertisements science. Fucking dark patterns are crazy if you don't know what they are. Imagine how we have the power to make people develop eating disorders because they seen too many magazine ads, and then imagine an applied science that abuses those mechanics and is worth trillions. Any anyone from Cambridge analytica, to a Nigerian Prince looking to scam someone has access to that. Facebooks algorithms have been used to cause revolutions and genocide and that access is just for sale.

At the same time it could be considered access to information issue, and a way to stifle and control the most like demographic to actually participate in protests and a rebellion.

What I don't like is our future generations are getting cut off from alternative forms of thought and are more likely to just go along with what ever their parents think, what they are taught at school. And right now public schools are very unpopular, parents think it's making them trans thanks to Joe rogan and the kick universe. So there's a big push for school vouchers which are creating this new market for religious schools that encorperate weird manosphere, sports betting, pro ai type classes. So we are essentially making Hitlers youth when I think the kids should be watching someone like Stavros hilkias who makes shitting on billionaire funny and a repeatable meme.

And I don't know what the kids watch these days so I don't know what or who they should watch, I just know growing up watching all this evolve to where it is now, that my access to information was never the problem. Its this new weird world where YouTube channels are getting bought out by private equity, and everything's some scam to get views. We got the guys who butt chug beers, with the president, and asks netanyaho what he eats at burger king. Half the podcasts are literally limited hangouts with the CIA or the vice president who are just running the narrative.

Something has to change and I don't think the internet fault. Certainly not the internet that I was promised growing up and figures like steve jobs spoke about after doing LSD at burning man. It the message was truely save the kids, magas favorite platform kick wouldn't be selling ad space to onlyfans, sports betting, predictive markets, fake drugs like shrooms, weed, etc to these kids. Who is their primary audience.

The answer is walkin talkies....the question usv"dad, wht kind of phone can you get fr me in highschool?

Banning something is probably not the answer, but it is crazy to me that a lot of parents don't seem to care what their children do on their phones.

I was at a barber last week. I was waiting for my turn and i could hear something talking/whispering and looked around. There was this boy between 6 and 9, scrolling on a phone. He was probably on tiktok or whatever. He scrolled like an absolute madman, he went through 20 videos in a minute or so. The ones he watched were dudes filming themselves from waaaay to close, like their dumb faces took up all of the screen.

Two things here, i think a child can just wait for 20 minutes until their dad is finished, i took my nephew with me when i got a haircut, and he was fine. If not, get him a book or comic book or whatever.
The other thing is that it would really bother me when stranger would talk to my kid over the phone like that. That shit can't be good or normal. Like imagine i would do that to him, sitting there really close to his face and talk to him, his dad would probably not comfortable with it.

Same day, in the store there was a child about the same age sitting in a shopping cart, playing fortnite. The cart was in the middle of a busy isle, and people just moved around him awkwardly. You couldn't pass him with a cart tho, so i just pushed his car out of the way. The kid never looked up, did not care at all that seone pushed him away and that he bumped into the wall. Later he was just in a different isle, because i assume his parents moved him around, same deal. I honestly just feel bad for that kid.

See but you only care about this because there is a moral judgement story here you can grab on to and say "SEE! WHY do they DO THAT!!?" that makes everything feel comprehensible to you.

The reality is that the only real strong predictor for how much screen time kids get is how stressed the parents are, so you are just blaming the victim because it feels better than looking directly at the problem in the end which is the collapse of quality of life happening to all of us.

https://theconversation.com/parents-putting-screens-in-front-of-their-kids-is-more-about-their-own-stress-than-other-factors-289115

Too soon to tell is what I would say. The author is jumping the gun so to speak with their opinion having nothing really to back them up. I do tend to agree that regulating is more important than just banning though. Logically it makes good sense

Saying things like kids will find a way is kind of true (use VPN or just lie). Kids still found a way to smoke even though they were banned from buying. Also, saying kids will go somewhere worse seems like saying if you take cigarettes away kids will skip straight to hard drugs. Not really convincing honestly.

Also, saying kids will go somewhere worse seems like saying if you take cigarettes away kids will skip straight to hard drugs.

Why would they not go somewhere less good if they no longer have the better alternative? What does this have to do with drugs this is a matter of social isolation from peers someone actually feels safe around.

To answer your first question the author sites a high percentage (60%) that just get around the block.

If you think social media solves the isolation problem you are quite wrong.

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9817115/

I was just making an example with smoking because it was banned as well and kids found ways to still smoke. The reality is though less kids smoked, which was the whole point.

Since I already mentioned smoking it is fair to bring up the slippery slope the author brought up and how ridiculous their leap is. No more ridiculous than saying by banning smoking kids will jump straight to using hard drugs. This is not realistic nor are the authors musing that teenagers will end up on even more dangerous sites.

If you think social media solves the isolation problem you are quite wrong.

I did not say that, but to write off all connections on social media as superficial because they are through a screen is to vastly oversimplify the human experience just the same.

Listen, I just gave you a peer reviewed scientific study that puts doubt into what you are saying. People need REAL connections, not social media. Don't parrot garbage PR that social media giants push.

Now if you are just talking about communication with technology, that is totally different. Social Media is about stealing personal information and manipulation. Perhaps you are just thinking having a digital way to talk to friends is good.

Social Media is about stealing personal information and manipulation.

No, Corporate Social Media run by rightwing billionaires does that.

Social Media is the entire category of digital media that involves humans socializing and interacting with one another.

We are on Social Media right now.

So all social media then? Because billionaires always snatch up any community they can.

I wonder what percentage of people use non-mainstream social media?

There are rough estimates of anywhere from 1-3 million people using the type of Social Media that is not controlled by major corporations. Compare that to around 5 billion users of corporate controlled social media.

We are on what could only be described as a fluke and nothing like 99.99% of the social media everyone else uses. While you do have a point, it is a very small one so to speak.

So all social media then? Because billionaires always snatch up any community they can.

Which is specifically why everyone here is so nerdy about finding the most resilient structures to corporate control that are still reasonably possible!

For real!

Banning anything doesn't work.

It makes me feel good though, like fuck those people, everybody knows that is a bad thing so why did they choose to do it? They SHOULD be punished! I mean it is about time!!...

~i continue off on a rant about an anecdote I repeat constantly that this is additional proof of and you start disassociating in order to block me out as you nod your head~

I would say it didn't have to be this way. Banning and censorship only makes things more enticing; I was a teenager once lol