Whats the public benefit from that rubbish?
CBeebies, CBBC - cool. Public benefit makes sense.
BBC Science and Documentaries - Public benefit. Fully justifiable.
EastEnders - Pay money to make other people less intelligent or we’ll fine you.
In theory, it could be used as a method of creating awareness and discussion of important life topics in a real life like familiar setting. And you can sort of see how they try to do that... but the need to have some new dramatic event every six weeks overshadows it.
Give us money against your will to pay for things you don’t agree with or we’ll take away your access to live media from everyone else too.
Now whether or not they can carry out the threats they’re notorious for or not, I’m just saying if it walks like an extortionist and quacks like an extortionist..
They'll send you threatening letters every 2 years or so saying they're going to come round your house but you just have to go on the website again and tell them you still don't watch live TV.
Essentially you’re guilty until you declare yourself innocent, and you need to prove innocence if the Beeb’s minions turn up at your house? What if you didn’t realize you needed the license because the rules around live broadcasts and battery-powered devices are so absurd?
People get sent to jail over this ridiculous situation while the government cheers from the sidelines.
[1] : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Television_licensing_in_the_Un...
If you want to unlock it pay X$ per month. See how many viewers are willing to pay for it. That's what Disney and Marvel did, grossing billions of dollar in the process.
> "Our main goal was to investigate how associations between adolescents’ technology use and mental health had changed over time."
And conclude:
> "Although we found little evidence suggesting that technology is becoming more harmful over time, [..]"
There is no need for social media to become more harmful over time to it being bad enough already.
The title of the study (There Is No Evidence That Associations Between Adolescents’ Digital Technology Engagement and Mental Health Problems Have Increased) gives away the constraint really. Yes, okay it did not become worse, but it might be harmful from the beginning.
I also personally feel like its incorrect based on my own experience, but the OII for now says that there is 'little evidence', although 'drawing firm conclusions about changes in their associations with mental health may be premature'
[1]-https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/2167702621994549
Having a look at what younger relatives are doing for likes and how important recognition and appreciation by friends in social media is for them, I find it hard to believe that there's "little association" when things don't go as planned.
But...that’s how older generations have always responded to what younger people do for social approval, and older people interpreting what they see that way as a precipitous decline since their own youth is one of the oldest clichés possibly as old as civilization.
> I find it hard to believe that there's "little association" when things don't go as planned.
Maybe, but maybe that is just as true independent of digital engagement.
That's a combination of
(a) a relatively modern myth ("It was always that way"),
(b) a cherry-picking from millenia for instances where that did happen (which wasn't "always" - many periods, even for centuries on end, had almost no change between generations regarding lifestyles. For some rural places that was even true for millenia.).
(c) from the cherry-picked cases where it did happen, ignoring the subset that it was also a totally valid criticism (e.g. in the decline of golden-era Athens or the fall of Rome, or the Weimar Republic), when the change in culture and attitudes eventually killed the community/city/republic.
Many of the instances where we have records of this being a recurring complaint of adults toward the youth were in those times of little apparent lifestyle change; part of that ia that the distance of our perspective probably minimizes changes that were perceived as significant in the local context, but a bigger part is that, while objective changes in lifestyle or technology can provide something to tie the complaint to, the main driver of the complaint is not the change in society but the change in the observer’s position and perspective within society.
But yes, the youth is always terrible. I've read that in the Hagakure, but I think it has already been mentioned/been a "fact" in ancient Greece, too. ;-)
That's why I'm wondering when the whole "seeking for appreciation"-thing has moved from real life to Instagram (kind of), are there no bad feelings, feelings of rejection and failure involved, when my new post doesn't get the likes I'm looking for?
Its always been visible to adults and has been a perennial complaint of adults about the youth.
> Teens, tech and mental health: Oxford study finds no link
What the study actually says, according to the same article:
> We couldn't tell the difference between social-media impact and mental health in 2010 and 2019, [..]
> [..] the connection is not getting stronger.
Hence, the title is an obvious lie. (likely to get more clicks, push a certain agenda, or both)
Having a title contradicting the contents of the article has become extremely common these days. Unfortunately, it's also very common for people to only read the headlines (does anyone know the stats on this?), and I'm sure media outlets are fully aware of that.
Hence, I would argue that articles with titles like these should be classified the same was as false information, and fought against accordingly. It's not enough to "clarify" the meaning in the article, when the title - the false claim - is all what most people take away (and disseminate further).
I thought bbc used to be a credible news source. When did they stop being so?