Skip to content

Study: US kids who said their social media, phone, or video game use was “addictive” were 2x-3x more likely to have thoughts of suicide or self-harm by age 14

Technology
10 9 0
  • This post did not contain any content.
  • This post did not contain any content.

    Late last year Australia passed a ban for the use of social media of under-16s. In principle I think this is a really good idea.

    Unfortunately they rushed it through without any thought as to how it would actually work in terms of age verification. It's now been 6 months, which means we're 6 months away from when it's supposed to come into effect, and we still don't have any idea how it's actually supposed to work. But the principle behind it: the idea that social media is actually really not healthy for our brains, especially at a young and vulnerable age, is a sound one. And there's only more and more research coming out to support that.

  • This post did not contain any content.

    hmm, i do wonder which causes which. Depression makes you prone to addictions as you seek anything to give you the happy chemicals. But constant social media exposure is rather harmful when you just take it all in, and that can cause depression Especially if you don't block keywords for war coverages and politics.

    i stand firm in my opinion that human brains are straight up not designed to take in a constant stream of bad news from around the world, which sucks because we are designed to focus on negatives for our survival. Memories of accidents and deaths take priority over nice memories so that we can avoid dangers better. from evolution's point of view you being happy is an afterthought, you just need to live long enough to fuck. and across history it worked! we never had to distinguish between dangers nearby and dangers so far away it literally does not matter for you, as all news were brought by foot or with an otherwise huge time delay - they were either nearby or already history, and only one or two at a time. well, never... until today, and our neuroplasticity doesn't seem to be enough to counter this, and evolution doesn't work fast enough to fix this

    Could also be a vicious cycle where if you trip and fall once both will create a negative synergy where you try to drown your sorrows in addictive doomscrolling, which only makes you worse

  • Late last year Australia passed a ban for the use of social media of under-16s. In principle I think this is a really good idea.

    Unfortunately they rushed it through without any thought as to how it would actually work in terms of age verification. It's now been 6 months, which means we're 6 months away from when it's supposed to come into effect, and we still don't have any idea how it's actually supposed to work. But the principle behind it: the idea that social media is actually really not healthy for our brains, especially at a young and vulnerable age, is a sound one. And there's only more and more research coming out to support that.

    I feel like it should be tacked on as a bell curve to older generations too lol. My grandmother and my parents are absolutely hopelessly addicted to Facebook reels, scrolling them nonstop throughout the day, just connecting those ads and wild algorithm messaging with those little dopamine hits.

    I remember spending hours tinkering with Linux in my bedroom as a kid and being yelled at for being antisocial and not spending enough time off the computer.

    How the turns have tabled

  • This post did not contain any content.

    So they're shifting the blame to social media & not at our society ? Of course

  • I feel like it should be tacked on as a bell curve to older generations too lol. My grandmother and my parents are absolutely hopelessly addicted to Facebook reels, scrolling them nonstop throughout the day, just connecting those ads and wild algorithm messaging with those little dopamine hits.

    I remember spending hours tinkering with Linux in my bedroom as a kid and being yelled at for being antisocial and not spending enough time off the computer.

    How the turns have tabled

    I remember spending hours tinkering with Linux in my bedroom as a kid

    I feel like the environment of subject-specific forums and IRC chat that Millennial geeks grew up with is very different from the centralised, generic, algorithm-driven social media that Gen Z grew up with, and non-geeky Millennials, Gen X, and Boomers adopted in the late aughts & '10s. That was really the best of what social media could do, with far fewer of the unhealthy downsides.

  • This post did not contain any content.

    I'm a little disappointed that they looked at each of social media, phone use and video game use independently as part of the study and didn't seem to consider any covariance. If you're looking for which things are really associated, seems like it'd be helpful to see where they overlap.

  • I remember spending hours tinkering with Linux in my bedroom as a kid

    I feel like the environment of subject-specific forums and IRC chat that Millennial geeks grew up with is very different from the centralised, generic, algorithm-driven social media that Gen Z grew up with, and non-geeky Millennials, Gen X, and Boomers adopted in the late aughts & '10s. That was really the best of what social media could do, with far fewer of the unhealthy downsides.

    centralised, generic, algorithm-driven social media

    Which is always within your fingers. I spent my fair time in IRC and early web-era forums and whatever we had at the time but it was on a full blown desktop computer with CRT displays. It was tied to a location and when you were even on another room that thing didn't follow you, much less when you left home.

  • This post did not contain any content.

    Oh gee I wonder why depressed kids are increasingly online where they are more free to express themselves, in a society where mental health problems are very stigmatized and confiding in someone that you want to kill yourself can get you imprisoned.

    Also, related post on the general concept of internet addiction and gambling social media addiction.

    txttletale:

    pun-ishment888:

    txttletale:

    txttletale:

    going to bat for the concept of internet addiction as someone under 80 is spectacularly funny

    damn people are spending a lot of time on the combination newspaper/public square/vast searchable library of incomprehensible amounts of information/storefront/private communications/some people's actual job technology. presumably there is some nefarious Scary Pathological Aspect to this,

    Imagine if you called gambling addiction "addiction to going outside" and doomed the discourse to constantly bounce between "ok SOME outside activities are bad, you need to have a good relationship with how you interact" and "theres nothing wrong with going outside dumbass"

    "gambling addiction" is an invention of the gambling industry leveraged to pathologise the human misery inflicted on purpose as part of their business model and divert discussions of that misery and suffering away from regulatory and political interventions that could prevent that harm and towards biomedicalized management of those experiencing that (again--foreseeable, inevitable, industry-working-as-intended) harm

  • Late last year Australia passed a ban for the use of social media of under-16s. In principle I think this is a really good idea.

    Unfortunately they rushed it through without any thought as to how it would actually work in terms of age verification. It's now been 6 months, which means we're 6 months away from when it's supposed to come into effect, and we still don't have any idea how it's actually supposed to work. But the principle behind it: the idea that social media is actually really not healthy for our brains, especially at a young and vulnerable age, is a sound one. And there's only more and more research coming out to support that.

    In the meantime: Parents: don’t give your children lighted rectangles to play with.

  • 196 Stimmen
    21 Beiträge
    2 Aufrufe
    S
    Sure: for professionals. However when casually commenting in a forum it is fine because the reader can go check the citations (and perhaps come back and add to the thread).
  • 1k Stimmen
    95 Beiträge
    9 Aufrufe
    G
    Obviously the law must be simple enough to follow so that for Jim’s furniture shop is not a problem nor a too high cost to respect it, but it must be clear that if you break it you can cease to exist as company. I think this may be the root of our disagreement, I do not believe that there is any law making body today that is capable of an elegantly simple law. I could be too naive, but I think it is possible. We also definitely have a difference on opinion when it comes to the severity of the infraction, in my mind, while privacy is important, it should not have the same level of punishments associated with it when compared to something on the level of poisoning water ways; I think that a privacy law should hurt but be able to be learned from while in the poison case it should result in the bankruptcy of a company. The severity is directly proportional to the number of people affected. If you violate the privacy of 200 million people is the same that you poison the water of 10 people. And while with the poisoning scenario it could be better to jail the responsible people (for a very, very long time) and let the company survive to clean the water, once your privacy is violated there is no way back, a company could not fix it. The issue we find ourselves with today is that the aggregate of all privacy breaches makes it harmful to the people, but with a sizeable enough fine, I find it hard to believe that there would be major or lasting damage. So how much money your privacy it's worth ? 6 For this reason I don’t think it is wise to write laws that will bankrupt a company off of one infraction which was not directly or indirectly harmful to the physical well being of the people: and I am using indirectly a little bit more strict than I would like to since as I said before, the aggregate of all the information is harmful. The point is that the goal is not to bankrupt companies but to have them behave right. The penalty associated to every law IS the tool that make you respect the law. And it must be so high that you don't want to break the law. I would have to look into the laws in question, but on a surface level I think that any company should be subjected to the same baseline privacy laws, so if there isn’t anything screwy within the law that apple, Google, and Facebook are ignoring, I think it should apply to them. Trust me on this one, direct experience payment processors have a lot more rules to follow to be able to work. I do not want jail time for the CEO by default but he need to know that he will pay personally if the company break the law, it is the only way to make him run the company being sure that it follow the laws. For some reason I don’t have my usual cynicism when it comes to this issue. I think that the magnitude of loses that vested interests have in these companies would make it so that companies would police themselves for fear of losing profits. That being said I wouldn’t be opposed to some form of personal accountability on corporate leadership, but I fear that they will just end up finding a way to create a scapegoat everytime. It is not cynicism. I simply think that a huge fine to a single person (the CEO for example) is useless since it too easy to avoid and if it really huge realistically it would be never paid anyway so nothing usefull since the net worth of this kind of people is only on the paper. So if you slap a 100 billion file to Musk he will never pay because he has not the money to pay even if technically he is worth way more than that. Jail time instead is something that even Musk can experience. In general I like laws that are as objective as possible, I think that a privacy law should be written so that it is very objectively overbearing, but that has a smaller fine associated with it. This way the law is very clear on right and wrong, while also giving the businesses time and incentive to change their practices without having to sink large amount of expenses into lawyers to review every minute detail, which is the logical conclusion of the one infraction bankrupt system that you seem to be supporting. Then you write a law that explicitally state what you can do and what is not allowed is forbidden by default.
  • Amazon is reportedly training humanoid robots to deliver packages

    Technology technology
    143
    1
    300 Stimmen
    143 Beiträge
    32 Aufrufe
    M
    Yup, and people seem to frequently underestimate how ridiculously expensive running a fleet of humanoid robots would be (and don’t seem to realize how comparatively low the manual labor it’d replace is paid.)
  • 136 Stimmen
    16 Beiträge
    7 Aufrufe
    E
    I thought we were going to get our share of the damages
  • Elon Musk’s Neuralink raises fresh cash at $9B valuation

    Technology technology
    15
    1
    12 Stimmen
    15 Beiträge
    4 Aufrufe
    bizzle@lemmy.worldB
    I'd rather die than let Elon Musk put shit in my brain.
  • 54 Stimmen
    3 Beiträge
    2 Aufrufe
    fauxpseudo@lemmy.worldF
    Nobody ever wants to talk about white collar on white collar crime.
  • You Can Choose Tools That Make You Happy

    Technology technology
    1
    1
    30 Stimmen
    1 Beiträge
    3 Aufrufe
    Niemand hat geantwortet
  • The technology to end traffic deaths exists. Why aren’t we using it?

    Technology technology
    36
    43 Stimmen
    36 Beiträge
    9 Aufrufe
    M
    You’re seriously attempting to argue with me about whether or not transportation existed before cars?