I'm very encouraged by your work. At the same time, this topic reminds me of debates in the nutrition world about the correct definition of ultraprocessed foods. Let the scientists work it out, but in the meantime, the rest of us can use our common sense to limit our exposure to these modern hazards (UPF's and invasive tech), replacing them with real food, in person human connection, etc, etc. 🙏
Depression is subjective to environment and mental development both as a 2 year old and 15 year old.
Social media logically can exasperate things.
However, any denial of social media NOT causing depression, either now or later, is denial and dangerous.
Sane washing is too easy to allow us to continue our addictions.
But this debate is pointless when we have parents still giving kids under 17 phones. But I guess it's like guns in the US, follow the money. There is too much money in social media, too many political opportunities.
Get them addicted early, like cigarettes, and they're hooked for life. A dirty politician may like to invest or own a social media platform to create their agenda and cult like followers. Seems to me this is pretty clear with the MAGA and MapleMAGA cults, fed purely from social media. Performative sound bites and video clips are all they need to keep the cult happy and fighting for that nasty politician.
Advertisers and politicians have too much to lose to stop social media for young people. Like protecting guns rights in the US and not protecting children's rights.
Focus people. It's not the coke, it's the supplier. Remove the supplier and coke is no longer available.
One point that should also be added to this debate is that the science of social marketing, which is a soft way of saying manipulation, is evolving and improving with these products. So each study is, in a very real sense, studying a slightly different phenomenon from the year before, and as the years pass the differences become more pronounced.
I am curious why no one is highlighting the 100% increase in anorexia? I know it’s not the focus of this evaluation but the increase is the same as the anxiety/depression rates.
We all appreciate the technical deep dive and links to actual studies; as lay people, it is often difficult to support these arguments with people who aren't engaged with children regularly. There is no question in my mind that harm is being visited on children via many different avenues, and social media is only part of it. The real culprit behind all this is advertising, which has always been a subset of the greed of the 20th-21st century, a subset of the petrodollar and its usurious nature.
I'm very encouraged by your work. At the same time, this topic reminds me of debates in the nutrition world about the correct definition of ultraprocessed foods. Let the scientists work it out, but in the meantime, the rest of us can use our common sense to limit our exposure to these modern hazards (UPF's and invasive tech), replacing them with real food, in person human connection, etc, etc. 🙏
Keep studying.
Depression is subjective to environment and mental development both as a 2 year old and 15 year old.
Social media logically can exasperate things.
However, any denial of social media NOT causing depression, either now or later, is denial and dangerous.
Sane washing is too easy to allow us to continue our addictions.
But this debate is pointless when we have parents still giving kids under 17 phones. But I guess it's like guns in the US, follow the money. There is too much money in social media, too many political opportunities.
Get them addicted early, like cigarettes, and they're hooked for life. A dirty politician may like to invest or own a social media platform to create their agenda and cult like followers. Seems to me this is pretty clear with the MAGA and MapleMAGA cults, fed purely from social media. Performative sound bites and video clips are all they need to keep the cult happy and fighting for that nasty politician.
Advertisers and politicians have too much to lose to stop social media for young people. Like protecting guns rights in the US and not protecting children's rights.
Focus people. It's not the coke, it's the supplier. Remove the supplier and coke is no longer available.
One point that should also be added to this debate is that the science of social marketing, which is a soft way of saying manipulation, is evolving and improving with these products. So each study is, in a very real sense, studying a slightly different phenomenon from the year before, and as the years pass the differences become more pronounced.
I am curious why no one is highlighting the 100% increase in anorexia? I know it’s not the focus of this evaluation but the increase is the same as the anxiety/depression rates.
Love the deep dive in to hard science.
We all appreciate the technical deep dive and links to actual studies; as lay people, it is often difficult to support these arguments with people who aren't engaged with children regularly. There is no question in my mind that harm is being visited on children via many different avenues, and social media is only part of it. The real culprit behind all this is advertising, which has always been a subset of the greed of the 20th-21st century, a subset of the petrodollar and its usurious nature.