I think it's that YouTube can be a nutritious meal (even though its frequently not), where as Instagram and Tiktok are both almost always McDonald's (with a few exceptions).
Either that, or YouTube runs a better PR campaign, I guess.
> His real concern were platforms that are specifically engineered to “keep the child’s eyes glued to the screen for as long as possible in a never-ending stream of social comparison and validation-seeking from strangers”—platforms that see the user as the product, not the customer. “How did we ever let Instagram and TikTok become a large part of the lives of so many eleven-year-olds?” he asked.
How are you surprised by this? YouTube is an entirely passive platform for the vast majority of its users. It wouldn't have a lot of the problems being talked about in this article because of that.
I think that this is incorrect framing, or at least incomplete framing. The question we should be asking is why are so many parents letting their young kids use these platforms.
In fact, why are kids before high school getting cellphones? And even if they do, why are they being allowed to use these apps?
I’m not saying the responsibility does not lie with these companies, but for some reason parents’ role seems to be entirely missing in all these narratives.
Plenty of parents likely do not let their kids use social media. How effective do you think that is? Kids can and will circumvent their parents' restrictions.
You can certainly make it harder by not giving your kid a cell phone, or giving them a dumbphone. But the article makes a good point that it's a tricky line between protecting your kid and effectively ostracizing them. Especially during the pandemic. Could you imagine being a kid who can't see their friends, can't text them, can only send them emails? You'd have effectively no social contact.
And you can't govern by telling people to be better parents. If one set of parents has a social media addicted child, that's on them. If ten million parents have a social media addicted child, you have a policy problem.
The question we should be asking is why are so many parents letting their young kids use these platforms.
Because their friends use it, and you are raising adults who will almost certainly use it so you might as well let the children learn some things.
In fact, why are kids before high school getting cellphones? And even if they do, why are they being allowed to use these apps?
Because if you don't allow the middle schooler to have one, it seriously changes who they can effectively be friends with as it affects how easily they can communicate with others. It happens to adults, too: Some basic jobs wouldn't hire folks without a phone (Don't know if that is still the case) and folks aren't generally as close to people they cannot easily communicate with.
They are allowed to use the apps in part because of ignorance and in part because kids will be kids. I watched a good amount of TV shows that my mom disallowed and bought music she disapproved of: I expect similar things with kids and apps.
There is simply no way for a parent to know everything a child does, especially as they age into pre-teen ages.
Someone else touched on the fact that as it becomes more common, keeping your kids from having access to technology only serves to make them be excluded from social engagement.
But the other side of this, and I honestly think a much bigger driver than anyone wants to give it credit for, is that it allows parents to surveil their kids to an unprecedented degree, and for better and for worse, parents are not going to pass up an opportunity to keep better track of their kids.
You'd never get a kid to keep a device on them that only tracked them. The fact it can also play games or go online is basically a bribe to be monitored.
That devolves into the age-old debate of restriction vs regulation. What devices should children have access to, and what devices are a problem? A laptop can just as well be used as badly as a cellphone in this context. Video games on home consoles can have just as much of a psychological effect as hate-mongering social media. I have had similar opinions (even reflected them in a past comment), but upon some feedback and introspection I've come to realize that forbidding kids from accessing something as ubiquitous as cellphones can't be viable. There is no set standard where you can draw a line that an individual is mature enough to handle social media, and there's no set consensus about when and how harmful it is that it would warrant bans. A handful of researches and surveys show that a section of children may face self-esteem issues from Instagram, but that's really not much to go on.
btw, I share the same bewilderment for children participating unrestricted in social media. I just don't have an answer to a practical standard of restriction. It seems like this generation's children will grow up having social media as a natural, integral part of society. So what it should boil down to, in my opinion, is to make social media spaces as safe, civil and habitable with laws, as you make the open world that children are exposed to. Regulate these platforms stringently, with constant supervision from public bodies, just as the police monitors real-life public spaces.
Social media by itself isn't all bad - if used correctly, it's an amazing way to connect.
The problem can be isolated to algorithmic feeds [0]. They encourage consumption over action, take you in unwanted directions and induce FOMO through overchoice and unrealistic standards. If you can eliminate them, these services magically become tools rather than escapes.
Unless "action" excludes things like "liking", commenting, and posting, this isn't true. Most feeds start out by trying to encourage "like" interactions because that's generally the easiest thing to directly optimize for. Next they encourage things like getting the viewer to post their own content, or leave a comment, or share the post.
I'd be happy to write more about how these algorithms work if you're interested.
People keep on insisting it is true, whole also showing a complete lack of understanding of what an algorithim actually is. It is the same level of garbage misunderstanding of "chemicals are bad for you".
> in eleven out of the twelve areas of concern that were studied (such as loneliness and eating issues), more teen-age girls said that Instagram helped rather than hurt.
That's a data point that seems to have gotten lost in most of the coverage. Although you might argue that data based on what teenagers report is dubious at best anyway.
How did the study compensate for the incentive for participants to give the answers that are least likely to result in them having their Instagram taken away?
Should we be using them at all? Yes, probably. Being able to connect with my friends and peers digitally was a mindblowing experience in high school. The problem is social media has pivoted away from social connection and been entirely re-focused on media consumption. Honestly, at this point I want Myspace back.
Wait, you are old enough to remember MySpace, but young enough to have had social media in high school (I assume on a smartphone)? I didn’t realize that those two things overlapped.
> thirty-two percent of teen girls said that when they felt bad about their bodies, Instagram made them feel worse. Another slide offered a blunter conclusion: Teens blame Instagram for increases in the rate of anxiety and depression. This reaction was unprompted and consistent across all groups.
In 2018 "obesity prevalence was [...] 21.2% among 12- to 19-year-olds." [0] according to the CDC. That's one out of 5 being obese, not just overweight. And it has more than tripled since the 70's [1]. I have to wonder if it's related.
> These revelations sparked a media firestorm. Instagram Is Even Worse Than We Thought for Kids, announced a Washington Post article published in the days following the Journal's scoop. "It's Not Just Teenage Girls: Instagram Is Toxic for Everyone," claimed an op-ed in the Boston Globe. Zuckerberg's public comments about his platform's effects on mental health appear to be at odds with Facebook's internal findings, noted the New York Post.
I find it interesting to see the traditional media's position here considering... Facebook effectively beats them at their own game! Advertising revenues are down for every legacy news outlet while Facebook is growing its add business year after year. So of course they are not going to be thrilled about that particular company.
> In a defiant post published on his Facebook account, Mark Zuckerberg pushed back, stating that the motives of his company were "misrepresented." The very fact that Facebook was conducting this research, he wrote, implies that the company cares about the health impact of its products. Zuckerberg also pointed to data, included in the leaked slides, that showed how, in eleven out of the twelve areas of concern that were studied (such as loneliness and eating issues), more teen-age girls said that Instagram helped rather than hurt.
Especially with lockdown, I can see how social media probably helped teenagers. And that's the tip of the iceberg; for LGBTQA+ youth it can literally save a life.
Also, notice how Zuckerberg is "defiant" when he contradicts large media conglomerates?
> thirty-two percent of teen girls said that when they felt bad about their bodies, Instagram made them feel worse
What percentage of people can do something to improve their appearance? 32% doesn’t seem like a high number to me. You’re looking at photos of well dressed, fit people. Why shouldn’t that motivate a person to do something to improve himself or herself?
Because it's not just about clothes. It's about the photoshopped silky smooth skin, with the perfect highlights/tones/lines, and the luscious lips, and just-the-right-amount-of-body-fat thighs and abdomen, which are unachievable no matter how much you dress nice and be fit.
The subreddit "instagramreality" shows just how unattainable and unrealistic images on social media can be.
If you look at /r/Instagramreality, on reddit, you'll see that people on instagram don't just look good, they use filters and editing to change their face-shapes, body-shapes, and almost anything else.
There's zero way that people can look as "good" as many of the popular instagrammers.
32% is huge. If we said one in three girls have mental disorders, that would be considered rather high.
Pictures on Instagram are not only often of models with eating disorders, but are then modified with apps to further 'beautify' the picture by airbrushing skin and accentuating curves. It's not motivational to see unrealistic standards that half the population can't achieve.
Talking to friends is great and it’s normal for the medium we use to do that to evolve.
Talking to strangers and to brands is pure poison. It’s the common thread between all of the problems on all of these platforms.
Imagine social media where every account is private by default, there are no brand accounts, and a user can only have ~1000 “friends”. The feed would be a purely chronological list of their updates, no algorithm.
Then it’s closer to a digital version of real life. Not an endless stream of ads and arguments.
Because it's just like the question about teenagers and sex: irrespective of whether we think they should, they're going to do it anyway. So all we can do is allow them to make informed decisions and urge them to protect themselves.
Firstly, about half of all people in the US reach their majority without having sex; I suspect the numbers for social media use are less rosy, so assuming the two are similar, there's room for improvement.
Secondly it's trivial to keep early teens off of social media, and (from my experience), the later that they start using social media, the less of an impact it has on their wellbeing.
[+] [-] notacoward|4 years ago|reply
And yet again, YouTube somehow escapes scrutiny. Funny how that always seems to happen.
[+] [-] fartcannon|4 years ago|reply
Either that, or YouTube runs a better PR campaign, I guess.
[+] [-] creato|4 years ago|reply
> His real concern were platforms that are specifically engineered to “keep the child’s eyes glued to the screen for as long as possible in a never-ending stream of social comparison and validation-seeking from strangers”—platforms that see the user as the product, not the customer. “How did we ever let Instagram and TikTok become a large part of the lives of so many eleven-year-olds?” he asked.
How are you surprised by this? YouTube is an entirely passive platform for the vast majority of its users. It wouldn't have a lot of the problems being talked about in this article because of that.
[+] [-] ok123456|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] yumraj|4 years ago|reply
In fact, why are kids before high school getting cellphones? And even if they do, why are they being allowed to use these apps?
I’m not saying the responsibility does not lie with these companies, but for some reason parents’ role seems to be entirely missing in all these narratives.
[+] [-] hardwaregeek|4 years ago|reply
You can certainly make it harder by not giving your kid a cell phone, or giving them a dumbphone. But the article makes a good point that it's a tricky line between protecting your kid and effectively ostracizing them. Especially during the pandemic. Could you imagine being a kid who can't see their friends, can't text them, can only send them emails? You'd have effectively no social contact.
And you can't govern by telling people to be better parents. If one set of parents has a social media addicted child, that's on them. If ten million parents have a social media addicted child, you have a policy problem.
[+] [-] Broken_Hippo|4 years ago|reply
Because their friends use it, and you are raising adults who will almost certainly use it so you might as well let the children learn some things.
In fact, why are kids before high school getting cellphones? And even if they do, why are they being allowed to use these apps?
Because if you don't allow the middle schooler to have one, it seriously changes who they can effectively be friends with as it affects how easily they can communicate with others. It happens to adults, too: Some basic jobs wouldn't hire folks without a phone (Don't know if that is still the case) and folks aren't generally as close to people they cannot easily communicate with.
They are allowed to use the apps in part because of ignorance and in part because kids will be kids. I watched a good amount of TV shows that my mom disallowed and bought music she disapproved of: I expect similar things with kids and apps.
There is simply no way for a parent to know everything a child does, especially as they age into pre-teen ages.
[+] [-] stormbrew|4 years ago|reply
But the other side of this, and I honestly think a much bigger driver than anyone wants to give it credit for, is that it allows parents to surveil their kids to an unprecedented degree, and for better and for worse, parents are not going to pass up an opportunity to keep better track of their kids.
You'd never get a kid to keep a device on them that only tracked them. The fact it can also play games or go online is basically a bribe to be monitored.
[+] [-] dartharva|4 years ago|reply
btw, I share the same bewilderment for children participating unrestricted in social media. I just don't have an answer to a practical standard of restriction. It seems like this generation's children will grow up having social media as a natural, integral part of society. So what it should boil down to, in my opinion, is to make social media spaces as safe, civil and habitable with laws, as you make the open world that children are exposed to. Regulate these platforms stringently, with constant supervision from public bodies, just as the police monitors real-life public spaces.
[+] [-] unknown|4 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] suketk|4 years ago|reply
The problem can be isolated to algorithmic feeds [0]. They encourage consumption over action, take you in unwanted directions and induce FOMO through overchoice and unrealistic standards. If you can eliminate them, these services magically become tools rather than escapes.
[0] https://suketk.com/feeds-considered-harmful
[+] [-] mgraczyk|4 years ago|reply
Unless "action" excludes things like "liking", commenting, and posting, this isn't true. Most feeds start out by trying to encourage "like" interactions because that's generally the easiest thing to directly optimize for. Next they encourage things like getting the viewer to post their own content, or leave a comment, or share the post.
I'd be happy to write more about how these algorithms work if you're interested.
[+] [-] fsckboy|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Nasrudith|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] missinfo|4 years ago|reply
That's a data point that seems to have gotten lost in most of the coverage. Although you might argue that data based on what teenagers report is dubious at best anyway.
[+] [-] jl6|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ng12|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] irrational|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] 908B64B197|4 years ago|reply
In 2018 "obesity prevalence was [...] 21.2% among 12- to 19-year-olds." [0] according to the CDC. That's one out of 5 being obese, not just overweight. And it has more than tripled since the 70's [1]. I have to wonder if it's related.
> These revelations sparked a media firestorm. Instagram Is Even Worse Than We Thought for Kids, announced a Washington Post article published in the days following the Journal's scoop. "It's Not Just Teenage Girls: Instagram Is Toxic for Everyone," claimed an op-ed in the Boston Globe. Zuckerberg's public comments about his platform's effects on mental health appear to be at odds with Facebook's internal findings, noted the New York Post.
I find it interesting to see the traditional media's position here considering... Facebook effectively beats them at their own game! Advertising revenues are down for every legacy news outlet while Facebook is growing its add business year after year. So of course they are not going to be thrilled about that particular company.
> In a defiant post published on his Facebook account, Mark Zuckerberg pushed back, stating that the motives of his company were "misrepresented." The very fact that Facebook was conducting this research, he wrote, implies that the company cares about the health impact of its products. Zuckerberg also pointed to data, included in the leaked slides, that showed how, in eleven out of the twelve areas of concern that were studied (such as loneliness and eating issues), more teen-age girls said that Instagram helped rather than hurt.
Especially with lockdown, I can see how social media probably helped teenagers. And that's the tip of the iceberg; for LGBTQA+ youth it can literally save a life.
Also, notice how Zuckerberg is "defiant" when he contradicts large media conglomerates?
[0] https://www.cdc.gov/obesity/data/childhood.html
[1] https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/hestat/obesity_child_15_16/obe...
[+] [-] fortran77|4 years ago|reply
What percentage of people can do something to improve their appearance? 32% doesn’t seem like a high number to me. You’re looking at photos of well dressed, fit people. Why shouldn’t that motivate a person to do something to improve himself or herself?
[+] [-] denkmoon|4 years ago|reply
The subreddit "instagramreality" shows just how unattainable and unrealistic images on social media can be.
[+] [-] stevekemp|4 years ago|reply
There's zero way that people can look as "good" as many of the popular instagrammers.
[+] [-] cm2012|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tsol|4 years ago|reply
Pictures on Instagram are not only often of models with eating disorders, but are then modified with apps to further 'beautify' the picture by airbrushing skin and accentuating curves. It's not motivational to see unrealistic standards that half the population can't achieve.
[+] [-] habosa|4 years ago|reply
Talking to strangers and to brands is pure poison. It’s the common thread between all of the problems on all of these platforms.
Imagine social media where every account is private by default, there are no brand accounts, and a user can only have ~1000 “friends”. The feed would be a purely chronological list of their updates, no algorithm.
Then it’s closer to a digital version of real life. Not an endless stream of ads and arguments.
[+] [-] armchairhacker|4 years ago|reply
Title should be changed.
[+] [-] bitwize|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] aidenn0|4 years ago|reply
Secondly it's trivial to keep early teens off of social media, and (from my experience), the later that they start using social media, the less of an impact it has on their wellbeing.