• Gutless2615@ttrpg.network
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    5 months ago

    “Childrens advocates “ have been backing the most egregiously unconstitutional, paternalistic, data broker friendly, moral panic, privacy dystopia bullshit bills around the country. “Childs advocates” are why we have anti pornography pearl clutching panopticon laws that require you to scan a government ID to jerk off. Fuck off with that.

    • jeffw@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      5 months ago

      Oh, did they have studies showing that the mods and rockers damaged people’s mental health? Is that how this is the same?

      • nondescripthandle@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        5 months ago

        Probably yeah. The modern world is designed to hurt your mental health. Is that the fault of social media or simply the price of being aware? If I learned that many groups of people are being genocided from reading Wikipedia and that makes me depressed would you say Wikipedia causes mental issues?

        • Tom_Hanx_Hail_Satan@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          5 months ago

          That is apples and oranges. Clicking through rabbit holes isn’t the result of an aggressive algorithm designed to prime you for products being advertised. The motivation for the content being hosted is the major issue and exploitation of younger people in service of that motivation.

          • nondescripthandle@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            edit-2
            5 months ago

            Advertising may be your problem, but I know the government’s not taking the “we dont allow kids to be served ads”, so then what, they’re mad it’s the Chinese in the lead? The Kids aren’t gonna be better off playing COD and watching action movies both of which are lightly disguised military recruitment propaganda aimed at them. You may be mad about it but based on their actions it’s not the fact kids are getting exploited that made the Surgeon General speak out, it’s that’s kids are getting exploited and someone else is benefiting.

            The mental health isn’t going to get better even if social media didn’t exist in general. People would just find a different outlet to develop maladaptive coping strategies with. Treating the symptoms isn’t gonna cure the root issue, but the root issue is expensive so we all know they’re not going to touch that.

            • Tom_Hanx_Hail_Satan@lemmy.ca
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              5 months ago

              The advertising was an easy and obvious example. I set you up for a straw man but whatever. If you don’t understand the harmful effects social media has on mental health and how it’s different from other forms of media/content, I’m not going to hold your hand through that. The sophistication of engagement algorithms should be obvious. The purpose of a surgeons general warning would be to raise awareness of those specific mental health issues that can be aggravated by excessive social media use. Raising the awareness of an issue is step in the right direction. Fine to call it a band aid but there’s no need to shit on progress of any type.

  • Ð Greıt Þu̇mpkin@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    5 months ago

    Have those warning labels been shown to work like at all? We already have awareness saturation about just how awful cigarettes are for you.

    • Bakachu@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      5 months ago

      With the government executing this message to our youth, I think they’ll work as well as the anti-piracy ones back in the day.

      You Wouldn’t Steal a Car

    • UnpluggedFridge@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      5 months ago

      What do you mean by work? Do they stop everyone from doing stupid things? No. Do they have a measurable effect on behavior? Yes.

    • Pat_Riot@lemmy.today
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      5 months ago

      The fact is, with the world we live in being like it is, why the fuck not smoke? For the chance to live a little further into the distopian hellscape of our impending future? Some reward that is for denying myself something I enjoy.

      • dogslayeggs@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        5 months ago

        You would have to be an absolute moron to think smoking only kills you early. That’s not how it works.

        Even if you don’t like the world around you today and aren’t enthusiastic about the future, the way smoking kills you makes your day to day worse until you eventually get a very painful day to day until you eventually give out and die. You are advocating slowly committing both expensive and painful suicide over a 30 year span because you don’t want to live for 40 more years.

        • GBU_28@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          5 months ago

          These comments are a good reminder of how dumb many people here are. Good temperature check

          • dogslayeggs@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            5 months ago

            I got a downvote for saying that smoking kills you slowly and eventually painfully. Like, how is that debatable at this point? Am I getting a downvote because I’m not vibing?

      • Grimy@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        5 months ago

        It’s not a great plan to encourage yourself to smoke while expecting a future society with even worse healthcare

  • technocrit@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    5 months ago

    This clown is comparing social media to cars and cigarettes. Cars are literally the leading killer of children. Cigarettes literally cause cancer… Social media? No. It’s pathetic but completely normalized when so-called “scientists” promote absolute pseudo-science.

    If these fools actually care about kids, reduce and ban cars. They’ll never do anything actually productive for kids and humanity because they’re profiting from complicity and exploitation. Let’s see how long these politicians last if they go up against auto cartels and pretrol tyrants.

    • rekorse@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      5 months ago

      So your argument is that you can’t possibly imagine a bad consequence of social media, that the studies by scientists showing the negative aspects are “pseudoscience”, that they don’t actually care about children, and that these politicians are just pushing this message to make a profit.

      Did I get it right?

      What will you lose if children are warned about the dangers of social media anyways?

  • nyan@lemmy.cafe
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    5 months ago

    Typical teen (and often preteen) response to be told to not do anything by adults: Say, “Yeah, right,” and go off and do it anyway. Even if you block them outright, they’ll find a way around it.

  • Uriel238 [all pronouns]@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    5 months ago

    I call shenanigans. We’ve had bullying when I was a kid in the 70s. Has anything been done about it? No. Why? Because dominance hierarchy is in among our school districts and administrators, and they like sports team lettermen over science nerds. This hadn’t changed in the aughts. It’s still the same, today. Even when kids come in with proof of violence (e.g. phone camera video) the question is why did you have a phone in school? not can we identify the dude curb-stomping kids three times smaller than him?

    We had hungry kids in the 70s. Have we done anything about it? No. We try to set up school lunches, but then the programs get cancelled because socialism bad! So kids are going hungry thanks to ideology.

    Are we yet teaching sexual consent (or how about consent in other places like work and TOS?) No. We’re teaching abstinence-only education in 26 states with comprehensive sex ed mandated in three (the west coast). We’re teaching girls they’re like chewing gum, that is, one-use, and a sexual assault destroys their value. And we’re teaching boys their sexuality isn’t welcome until they can afford to put a ring on it and have a salary in place, driving them to become alt-right war boys for Immorten Joe. ( WITNESS ME! )

    So how about dealing with kids who are homeless? In poverty? In the abusive foster-care system? Dealing with DV at home? Not a god damn thing. Kids need food, shelter, basic needs like clothing, playtime, time to bond with their family, time to socialize, stability at home. Until they have these things, any energy we spend not arranging to providing these things is failure of society to serve basic child welfare for the public.

    Warning labels on social media will not feed hungry kids, or assure their place to sleep is safe and warm, and we have an outrageous number of kids for whom the latter set are the problem, not dangers of social media. Also warning labels that are not congruent with current scientific consensus only weaken the veracity of tobacco product labels.

    ETA: That’s not the best link. This search leads to a wider array of stories, and TD is pretty good about including sources within each article.

  • doubtingtammy@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    5 months ago

    I hate social media, And think it’s probably harmful to kids. But the evidence just isn’t there. Where are the meta reviews? Is there a Cochrane study? No, it’s just based on vibes. And I doubt the surgeon general is homophobic, but I can guarantee this will be used to further the current trans/gay panic

    • enbyecho@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      5 months ago

      No, it’s just based on vibes.

      You didn’t bother looking, clearly.

      Edit: I’m not saying I’m familiar with what the studies say, although some draw a clear link with adverse mental health impacts on kids. Not sure how far that goes. I’m also not saying I agree with the SG or the need for warning labels, but to say this is based on “vibes” is, ironically, speculative at best.

    • UnpluggedFridge@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      5 months ago

      Go to pubmed. Type “social media mental health”. Read the studies, or the reviews if you don’t have the time.

      The average American teenager spends 4.8 hours/day on social media. Increased use of social media is associated with increased rates of depression, eating disorders, body image dissatisfaction, and externalizing problems. These studies don’t show causation, but guess what, we literally cannot show causation in most human studies because of ethics.

      Social media drastically alters peer interactions, with negative interactions (bullying) associated with increased rates of self harm, suicide, internalizing and externalizing problems.

      Mobile phone use alone is associated with sleep disruption and daytime sleepiness.

      Looking forward to your peer-reviewed critiques of these studies claiming they are all “just vibes.”

      • doubtingtammy@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        5 months ago

        You’re doing the same thing antivaxers do. Doing your own research on pubmed is honestly a terrible way to reach conclusions, unless you have the necessary background in that field. OR if there’s a metaamalysis published in a journal that has a more generalist audience.

        And you didn’t even link to the studies or give citations

        • UnpluggedFridge@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          5 months ago

          If you do the search I suggested you will find relevant reviews immediately. If you add keywords based on my post text you will find the primary sources immediately.

        • GBU_28@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          5 months ago

          Pretty disingenuous to say this person is acting like an antivaxxer for reading medical journals, when one comment down you admit to forming your opinion by browsing nature, and not being a field expert yourself.

          Your comments display hypocrisy and you should commit one way or another.

      • afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        5 months ago

        Kids these days with their new fangled smartphones. Back in my day we made new friends at a lynching or at the sockhop.

        Everything after I was 21 is shit!