News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Australia: Kids under 16 to be banned from social media a... by fsflover on Thursday November 28, 2024 @11:14AM (#42266357)
> I have tried to find good scientific evidence that shows that social media is a net negative for kids and or adults. I have been unable to do so.

Facebook knows Instagram is toxic for teen girls, company documents show (wsj.com)

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28523688

Facebook proven to negatively impact mental health (tau.ac.il)

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32938622

Testimony to House committee by former Facebook executive Tim Kendall (house.gov)

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24579498

Re:Australia: Kids under 16 to be banned from social media a... by cscurmudgeon on Thursday November 28, 2024 @12:03PM (#42266843)
See this is just thing the commenter you are replying to is saying.

Just read the comments in your second link tearing apart the study.

Given the replication crisis in psychology, the authors make bad choices in the experiment design that are not justifiable in 2022.

Re:Australia: Kids under 16 to be banned from social media a... by fsflover on Thursday November 28, 2024 @12:41PM (#42267180)
How about my third link?
Re:Australia: Kids under 16 to be banned from social media a... by rpdillon on Thursday November 28, 2024 @02:12PM (#42267834)
I'm getting a 502 error trying to access the original content. It doesn't appear to be a scientific study, but rather a testimony from a Facebook executive talking about how they disregarded user safety in the development of algorithms that increased engagement. That's not quite what I'm looking for, though. I'd like to see something examining the effects of those behaviors on the population.

I will say that the lengths the executive goes to to compare social media with tobacco degrade the quality of the argument in my opinion; science tends to ask the question and then seek the answer. Arguments like this seem to start with the answer (it's like Big Tobacco) and then construct the argument accordingly.

Re:Australia: Kids under 16 to be banned from social media a... by fsflover on Thursday November 28, 2024 @05:14PM (#42268901)
> I'd like to see something examining the effects of those behaviors on the population.

In the testimony, they explain it:

We took a page from Big Tobacco’s playbook, working to make our offering addictive at the outset.

Allowing for misinformation, conspiracy theories, and fake news to flourish were like Big Tobacco’s bronchodilators, which allowed the cigarette smoke to cover more surface area of the lungs.

https://web.archive.org/web/20210318063530/https://energycom...

Re:Australia: Kids under 16 to be banned from social media a... by cscurmudgeon on Thursday November 28, 2024 @10:06PM (#42270443)
Still no science though. One exec's views in a large company doesn't equal science.

If exec's views are science/truth. Then I bet you would have found execs in tobacco companies who thought they were doing good.

Re:Australia: Kids under 16 to be banned from social media a... by fsflover on Friday November 29, 2024 @04:25AM (#42272493)
True, it's not science. It is however the intention.
Re:Australia: Kids under 16 to be banned from social media a... by hellojesus on Sunday December 01, 2024 @02:32AM (#42286869)
> Allowing for misinformation, conspiracy theories, and fake news to flourish...

I don't understand why people are so against this? Isn't it possible that people do research to determine the validity of what they read online?

Re:Australia: Kids under 16 to be banned from social media a... by fsflover on Sunday December 01, 2024 @10:25AM (#42288862)
Is it possible for the people to do research and avoid junk food, smoking and alcohol? (Also, to understand the danger of the climate change.)