Social media has a lot of problems - even this article on just Facebook outlines a number of them [0] but I agree with the above poster in saying that you can't have a societal post-mortem analysis of the effects of social media given its very much _not dead_ state. Advocating that society just presses a 'shut down' button until "we collectively decide how we should proceed" is an entirely unrealistic scenario.
HN's posting frequency limits made that choice for me. The system is unfortunately biased towards drive-by comments and against engaging with feedback on your own comments.
Edit:
> Advocating that society just presses a 'shut down' button until "we collectively decide how we should proceed" is an entirely unrealistic scenario
But that's what I'm advocating. I don't think I'm obligated to respond to people who only came by to reject the premise of my argument. More interesting discussions are available to anyone who shows up with an open mind.
So what about the countless number of people whose livelihoods depend on social media in some capacity? They're supposed to just be fine with being irrevocably fucked over until the moral panic about social media subsides? (or, in your words, "we decide what is good for us all")
Where does the small business owner who depends on a social network factor in as a "stakeholder"?
Drugs, sugar, cigarettes are measurably and objectively harmful to your health and that's why they are regulated (or should be).
There isn't similar comparable scientific evidence that social media is nearly as harmful except for questionable non-reproducible psychology studies, so I don't think it's comparable at all.