I agree with the sentiment, but there is a huge difference between anonymous forms for professional/hobbiest interests and platforms that breed comparisons of your real life to your peer's curated online life and have algorithms designed to keep you online at all costs.
Even posts on technical topics can drive harmful comparisons.
I went through a period of social isolation and HN was an escape. OPs and commenters became the closest thing to peers that I had. Those peers were consistently perceived as smarter and more motivated than me, and my already poor self esteem continued to decline.
Now that I'm working full-time onsite again, the bar set by my physical peers is much more achievable than what folks on HN acheive.
HN might be better than tiktok, but 5 hours a day of either is bad for your soul. Physically being around and working with others is vital to most people's mental health, even introverts like me that feel like avoidance is the most appealing path.
Tangentially - if you struggle with feelings that point you in directions you know are bad, be very careful if you engage with the mental healthcare system.
I’m not sure I agree. Depends more on your relationship with the platform. If you spend many hours browsing content, and particularly consuming and engaging with content that affects your mood, that’s a sign of a poor relationship with social media; not the specifically the topic of the content
Some examples of possible offenders in HN favorite topics: discussions of inflation, discussions of housing shortage, discussions of government and their policy, discussions of big tech and the possibly harmful things big tech does, discussions of basically anything about crypto, web3, or metaverse, discussions about censorship, the list goes on
If you look in the comment threads for these topics you see the signs of unhealthy relationship with social media. Highly emotional and inflammatory arguments with total internet strangers
Indeed, when I was a teenager I spent at least 5 hours a day chatting on Yahoo Chat/IRC, getting into flamewars on mailing lists, etc.
Was that any different? I'd find it hard to believe GNU/Linux vs Linux or Slackware vd Red Hat Linux was worth any more than random dancing or makeup tutorials.
It's a bit like someone working at an arms factory saying "I just built the bomb, I didn't drop it on anyone", and they're right, but they're also complicit in the overall process. Without their actions, there would be no bomb to drop.
> It should be noted that no ethically-trained software engineer would ever consent to write a DestroyBaghdad procedure. Basic professional ethics would instead require him to write a DestroyCity procedure, to which Baghdad could be given as a parameter.
It's the parents of those working for the arms factory's fault. Without their actions there wouldn't be a bomb drop.
That is of course a far stretch, but I would argue that your argument is too.
Non-complicit workers might have just lost their jobs and would have been replaced with complicit ones and the bomb would still be dropped.
For this to make sense I think it's important to look at the distribution of power really.
Considering the power of the people who order the bombs and factory workers not really having a leaver I don't think their actions make a difference.
If every civilian didn't pay his taxes, the bomb order couldn't be funded. Non-proximal moral causality breaks down pretty fast when there are alternate non-evil uses of resources.
I've seen numerous active posters here criticize platforms like TikTok while engaging in all sorts of mental gymnastics about how HN is different. Someone’s doing it already in a sibling comment.
And I'm not claiming superiority; I just don't feign to be above those who spend their time on TikTok.
I mean yeah it's ironic. But one thing I think we've barely even scratched the surface of is the cognitive effects of reading/writing vs watching/swiping.
We know that reading is correlated to all kinds of positive things. For example: success, improved brain function, memory and mood. If you read and write a lot on social media maybe you get at least some part of that benefit.
Whereas, we're pretty sure you don't get any of those benefits from swiping and watching. But we do know that social media overall is correlated to the INVERSE of a bunch of those good things. It's correlated to worse cognitive abilities, worse memory, depression and anxiety!
And the most studied of the passive watching experiences (TV) is correlated to negative stuff too.
So frankly - replacing a reading habit with Tiktok (exactly what the nation's teens have done over time) is almost certainly unhealthy.
Edit: Reading (specifically the studies I'm aware of specify reading books and possessing high reading comprehension, but maybe other forms too) is correlated to better critical thinking, too. How much of the rise of fake news is attributable to the fact that we stopped reading?
It includes YouTube as social media, which accounts for 2 hours of the 4.8 hours. I’m pretty sure video games and TV used as much if not more prior to YouTube existing.
> I don't have a traditional TV/cable subscription, instead I stream YT to my TV.
That I think is the real distinction. But if you're in the comments section of YouTube then I think it should count as social media; so in your scenario I agree it doesn't.
I wonder what governments will do to counter this, if indeed it is a problem to be solved. What do we think - should the US implement laws maximum hours per user per platform, according to age?
The Chinese gov't has limited their equivalent of TikTok—which is purely educational content—to 40 min a day and zero access for kids between 10pm and 6am.
That's not a bad start. Overexposure is literally giving users dementia, aka brain atrophy.
eta: if anyone was spending 4.8 hours a day playing the slots, we'd call that a serious addiction, let alone kids whose brains are still forming.
My guess would be that the sample size here is small and therefore it's not a completely iron clad study. Maybe there are bigger studies out there, I don't know. This one would be easy to gainsay and/or maybe the publication doesn't think its readers respond to scientific research.
I guess this is like the early days of research showing smoking was bad. Long way to go until everyone is convinced.
Here it means "edited to add". It's a way to signal it wasn't part of my first post, and I think it's polite because if someone replies and then the OP edits but doesn't mark what they've added, it can make the reply look weird and out of joint. Which sometimes people do on purpose.
do we agree with this authoritarianism? I wonder whether we should just let the kids access to all information, we actually don't know whether this will lead to good or bad outcomes.
No, children should not have access to "all information". The world is full of information and media that would traumatize them. For example, murder videos from a brand new war. Radicalization content would also go on my "not for children" list.
There is plenty of material that children lack the tools to understand and digest without trauma or ideological absorption. Most adults lack those skills too, to be fair.
There should actually be ways to choose for your children what kinds of content you would like them to have access to until they're mature enough to decide for themselves. If you want to limit it to educational content, that's up to you as a parent.
Like the parent of the dude who just cut the throat of that French teacher ? It's a family of radical islamists but who are we to say they're radical ? Maybe we just don't understand them ? maybe we are the problem ?
Is antisemitism radical ? Are islamists radical ? Who knows right ? Such a tough question!
For you the world seems to be black and white (assuming your comment was sarcasm).
Radical means favoring extreme changes.
So depending on where you live and in what part of society the things you mentioned above might not be seen as radical or they might be.
I for example would have liked to not give children access to a bible too. That might be seen as radical in some christian societies...
Is wearing a burqa radical? Are books that have inappropriate language radical? Are transgender rights radical? It’s a slippery slope. Banning access to information is dangerous.
Why do you want foreign apps made by authoritarian countries to have root access to your kids brains ?
> Why do you want more authoritarians?
> Why do people want the government to solve all problems?
I know it's 2023 and people believe "laws = authoritarianism" but come on.
We decided to live in organised and hierarchical societies for a reason, and the reason isn't "I want to do whatever I want whenever I went even if it's detrimental to myself and my community"
I'm not sure where you got the idea of "laws = authoritarianism" from my questions, but it definitely is an easy strawman to knock over.
In fact, I believe the level of laws a society has should be negotiated by its citizens. I prefer a more liberal society, but that does not mean I do not want laws.
The question to be debated is just how much power a government should have. Personally I would prefer that parents and their community determine what is right for a child to be exposed to instead of a top-down approach, but there is a lot of grey area there and must be negotiated culturally and politically.
What I do fear is that authoritarians rarely give up authority once given, and once given enough authority the populace's ability to negotiate government's role in their life democratically evaporates. Increasingly despotic leaders seek the power the government now holds.
The history of the 20th century shows this in extreme forms in the likes of Hitler, Mao, Pol Pot, Stalin, etc.
Especially in the case of Germany - Hilter was elected! - the people wanted his authority because he promised to fix Germany, promised to fix the morals of their society.
I see parallels in legislating morality, or the attitude that government _should_ legislate every moral or social quandary.
Anyway, I'd encourage you to steel-man your opponents ideas instead of assuming the most ridiculous, easily-defeated idea of it.
Because parents often don't want to raise their kids anymore because they are too busy with making money or fulfilling individualism.
Can you really not understand why some people favor authoritarian systems? Can you not imagine that some folks just don't want think critically themselves? Live is often dull but easy if you follow along in authoritarian systems. Some people prefer that
the solution to authoritarianism is to learn from the authoritarians? I'm pleased that we are able to think like this, we should learn what we can, from whoever might have the right answer - in this I fully agree
Fortunately, I do live in the woods and I do expect to homeschool ... but its quite defeatist to suggest parents must live with their kids being on social media 5 hrs per day, just cause everyone else lets their kids do it.
The overall amount of time adolescents spend on passive screen entertainment has increased dramatically in our lifetimes, especially in the last decade. It has come at the expense of books and reading (as well as other things). There is lots of data out there.
"Cultivation theory proposes that those who spend more time “living” in the virtual world of television may perceive the “real world” as per the imagery, principles, and portrayals depicted on the small screen. People who spend a lot of time watching television are likely to assume a television worldview of mental illness."
"TV time is associated with numerous adverse health outcomes. Future guidelines could suggest limiting TV time to less than 2 hours per day to reduce most of the associated adverse health events."
Seeing how the platforms accounting for the bulk of time are YouTube and TikTok, which are predominantly passive forms of consumption (compared to social media platforms that promote higher levels of engagement), I think comparing it to TV consumption is pretty apt.
The problem with these types of articles is they are simply fixtures that print media companies publish every year, recycle the same decades-old talking points, and add very little insight.
I am truly amazed to watch my generation (GenX) read these articles and react to it like it is new or newsworthy.
The least we could do is elevate the conversation or begin to ask questions like: Are video games better than passive entertainment? How can we best engage and challenge young minds with technology so we can equip them with the mental faculties to thrive into adulthood? How do we help them disengage and quiet their minds so they can focus or meditate?
You're one of those video game defenders, extolling the interactivity as though it's so sophisticated and intellectually edifying. Video games are mental garbage. I remember kids telling me in elementary school that Nintendo and Sega were really good for improving hand-eye coordination, and now it's seriously being called "esports."
hm yes ? When I was a kid I had 5 tv channels and that's it. Nothing interesting to watch ? Well get out or find a comic book.
Today: unlimited stream of shit coming from an unlimited number of sources, everything is 2-10s long which destroy your attention span. People competing to trigger your primal needs, everything slowly evolve into softcore porn, the rest is disguised advertising. Look at what's trending on tiktok and ig, it's scary
Yes, 100%. I went to my grandparents very often for the sole reason that they had 50+ channels to binge watch animes. There was always something available if you looked for it, complete different experience from my parent's place
I'll take your advice and watch 6 hours of TikTok every day for the next 12 months and then confirm to you whether or not you're right about it being scary. Thanks for the suggestion! Looking forward to what I learn.
Is social media really passive though? For some its quite active, responding to DMs, religiously checking post metrics, feeling pressure to post right this moment instead of just existing, comparing your posts to your peers or favorite influence.
Its also much sticker, constant notifications, algorithms built around keeping your eyes glued to an app, dopamine rewards for engaging with content.
I don't deny that less time is likely being spent on TV than older generations and I also don't pretend that TV didn't manipulate people into watching more ads, spending money, etc. But I think there is a huge generational miscalculation about the dangers of Social media vs older slower media.
Social media is its own thing with its own trade offs.
Among other things mass media like TV promote a shared cultural identity. You can argue that shared cultural identity is a good or bad thing, but it’s a different thing than you get from social media.
On the flip side TV isn’t going to improve your typing skills.
The first generation to watch a lot of TV went on to exhibit many (then) unique social and individual pathological problems. There were similarities to previous waves: Radio, Novels, and Newspapers all had people decrying the destruction of humanity and civilization because of the dangerous new trends.
Bonus points for every wave's denouncers having to ignore all the details like "what are they reading" in order to tar an entire economic sector with the same brush. Seems to be a requirement for the form.
Is playing a puzzle game with a group the same "social media" as mindlessly staring at a tiktok stream for the same time period? Was reading a daily newspaper for the stock prices the same as "being informed" of the 1860's equivalents of Bat Boy and Aliens Ate My Husband?
Don't forget how destructive written language was. Kids didn't build critical memory skills because they could write it down. Clearly the world went to hell after the invention of the alphabet.
To clarify: my point is, social media is way more prevalent than football head injuries. And yet there isn't really the same public health scandal around social media.
"This study investigated fronto-cingulate gray matter abnormalities in problematic smartphone users, particularly those who spend time on social networking platforms. [...]
Problematic smartphone users had significantly smaller GMV in the right lateral orbitofrontal cortex (OFC) than healthy controls, and there were significant negative correlations between GMV in the right lateral OFC and the Smartphone Addiction Proneness Scale (SAPS) score, including the SAPS tolerance subscale. [...]
These results suggest that lateral orbitofrontal gray matter abnormalities are implicated in problematic smartphone use, especially in social networking platform overuse."
upvotes article on hacker news