Seattle Public Schools has seen enrollment drop 30% (!!!) over the past couple years because it is an utter shambles [0]. (correction: many schools have that level of decline or higher, but the decline district-wide is much lower). Cancelling as many advanced classes as possible, without grandfathering, so (eg) my two sons were both forced to repeat a year of math when they cancellled year-up math. An administration that is roundly hated, by parent and teacher alike.
This feels like grasping in the dumbest possible way while ignoring the actual problem: if you bore the heck out of the kids, the ones who can afford to leave will. Also being bored 8 hours/day isn't good for mental health...
Maybe the dopamine addictions that many of these kids experience are the reason they’re bored with school. Maybe they’re a contributing reason that remote learning was ineffective.
When I was a kid, going to school was the social medium. Even the kids who skipped class physically came to school to meet up. Now that we’ve removed that incentive for attendance, no wonder kids don’t show up.
i don’t know anything about the other issues facing the school but to say social media addiction is a “dumb” thing to address seems incredibly naive to me.
growing up is hard enough as it is and social media absolutely can be detrimental to mental health if used excessively.
imo the only reason we haven’t properly addressed the issue as a society is because it’s incredibly difficult to “prove” from a research perspective given the newness of social media.
Sadly this what happens with the “equity” push is public schools. There is no way to have “equalized” outcomes without dumbing down the content. This means less advanced courses.
It’s sad because somehow the idea of equal opportunity has been replaced with equalized outcomes in education.
I'm skeptical of your 30% number. Their reports seem to indicate current enrollment of 51608 compared to a peak of 53627, down 4%. That doesn't seem out of line with demographic processes.
Lots of comments about this being the wrong group of people to initiate this. Others playing the “is it really the same thing” card.
I find myself torn. They are often sound/reasoned arguments. But I also struggle because the state of play isn’t right either. Social media engagement is now one of the leading causes cited in divorces. My wife and I of nearly 30 years have to battle this ourselves. Something seems clearly wrong with our surveillance economy, yet we struggle to come up with sound reasoned diagnoses and remedies. I guess that’s why it persists.
So I end up both thinking this suit is “silly” and at the same time cheering them on because continued optimization along this evolving status quo vector just seems so obviously wrong.
I think you've got it right - they're trying to address a serious problem that is absolutely worth addressing, but doing it with this kind of a lawsuit is indeed silly. Even if they win, it's not going to do anything meaningful to address the underlying causes of social media addiction in kids. As an institution that has access to these kids for ~7 hours a day, they ought to be able to come up with a more productive approach.
That's exactly it. As a lawyer, I'm aware that it's technically discouraged to initiate lawsuits for e.g. "political" or "social" reasons beyond the affected parties -- but I definitely think we're in "something has to be done, or at least TALKED ABOUT" territory, and I have no personal problem with this approach.
What is it you're hoping for? Prohibition, so people cannot use social media platforms because they're outlawed? I don't think that'll work, for the same reason prohibition doesn't work for anything that a large part of the population wants.
And what even is social media in that sense. Aren't forums social media? HN has a score and you and other will be told how "the community" values your comments. Sure, it's not emoji thumbs pointing up and down and a frowny face, but what's the difference? Should HN be outlawed because someone might attach their self-worth to getting upvotes? Should Reddit be?
I don't think the problem around social media is the "it's a feed full of trivial stuff that'll steal hours of your life", it's that you have to be on there if you want to have an active social life and not be an outsider. But if you take down facebook, instagram, twitter and tiktok, kids will find a new platform to flock to and to play their social games, bully some and make others celebrities. It's what they do, and now that the tech is here, they'll use it to do it.
I don't know how hard it is for today's kids, but I sure am glad that I went through puberty before internet was a big thing in my country.
.. as a Seattle dad .. I fucking love this awkward yet clearly precedent-setting case. I know most of the board and the majority of us are fed up and taking the power we have to task and accountability. This has been in the works for over four years and we know the end game: new laws, adopted by other cities and states. .. it’s been a clearly focused project for over 4 years now. One of my friends is on the board. I knew it was coming Q1 2023 and glad they stayed on task. A bevy of mental health experts are core to this - so due diligence. I don’t know the layout of the legal team, but was told they have put this thru the ringer - the goal has always been a legal precedent, then actual legislation then adopted by other entities as well. The Portland School District has a parallel lawsuit as well. The pushback will be WELL propagandized and vilified. I can only imagine what garbage FOX will spew.
Both you as a parent and the board had the power to stop children from using social media; or at least severely restrict it. Yet you choose to waste years on a very low probability lawsuit?
What is the school doing about evidence that attending in-person school increases suicide? That seems like a much easier issue to tackle and well-within their remit. (Legit question as you seem well informed about their current thought process)
Teenagers have changed. There are a load of interesting stats about what has changed.
From 1994 to now.
Percent with a driver's licence has gone from 84.7% to 72.7%, tried alcohol fro 81% to 66.1%, gone on dates from 83% to 58% and had a job from 71.7% to 55%
So the public schools will turn a profit from the increasingly depressed teens... and then what? Business as usual with some bonus cash for counseling services? What's the real goal here? Precedent?
I don't see the (non-monetary) benefit unless there are new laws introduced that severely restrict how social media is allowed to operate or outright ban various addictive techniques employed by their platforms (which will need to be constantly amended because they'll come with addictive ideas faster than they can possibly be proven addictive).
Had any of this harm been physical, everybody would be cheering to combat it. But because it's mental, it's "not real", right?
Behavioral scientists can plot any metric against the last decade and it spectacularly deviates from what came before it, in a bad way. A seismic shift.
It's a problem. A massively complicated problem where regulation will be tricky. For the record, even Zuckerberg himself has practically begged for regulation in response to issues affecting teen girls specifically.
> even Zuckerberg himself has practically begged for regulation in response to issues affecting teen girls specifically.
I recall this being criticized as Zuckerberg cynically trying to create an anti-competitive regulatory moat around Facebook. Seems plausible to me, I have a hard time believing that Zuck has a single sincere and benevolent bone in his body.
But even if he has cynical motivations for proposing it, that doesn't mean the idea itself is bad.
School attendance is reliably associated with student suicide rate. We know it's causal because the association tracks random variations in the school year (snow days and make-up days, teacher strikes, differences in district calendars, etc). So forgive me if I believe their concern to be less than genuine.
In my experience, which in unfortunately way too much, people commit suicide when they feel trapped in a bad situation. It’s hard to think of a more likely scenario than someone that’s having a bad time at school. I hope every parent out there starts to offers up online schooling as “always an option.” It would have saved some friends of mine.
What is it that you're suggesting? That school attendance is a cause of suicide? That can't be... because if so then it's a miracle for all of us who made it before hand that we survived such a dangerous place and built the modern world and all.
Understand that any time you leave your house you run the risk of having a bad day. So for kids, who regularly leave their house for school, it makes sense that the primary factor leading to a "bad day" for a kid would occur in or around campus. And I can totally believe there's a causal link between when someone chooses to commit suicide and the kind of day they were having.
I'm just not sure what you're suggesting. Are we all just supposed to stay home? That's not workable. You have to face the world.
Also you take a chance every time you get in your car to go anywhere. Doesn't mean we should avoid automobiles.
I'm not trying to be sarcastic... Just trying to understand the angle you're after with this stat.
You seem to be assuming that they can't be concerned with more than one problem simultaneously. You also seem to be assuming that addressing social media problems in schools won't help address the suicide problem. You also seem to be assuming that they aren't already doing something to address the suicide problem.
So far, two comments saying this is grandstanding by the school board.
If you replace social media with drugs and high schoolers with homeless people, wouldn't it be more typical for people to be saying that elected officials aren't doing ANYTHING!
What's the difference?
I have read enough to know that these social media companies are employing behavioral scientists that are attempting to make their products addictive. And, I believe teenage brains are particularly succeptible. So this doesn't seem like grandstanding to me.
Unclear why the school has standing, except they have to deal with depressed students, but doesn't everybody? Can Starbucks sue because it's become harder to find cheerful baristas?
They have standing because its a statutory tort and because and to the extent thar they allege the kind of action and injury that the statute makes compensable.
You seem to be imaging the kind of analysis done for a suit that is not based on a statute providing liability, but on a conflict of laws trying to negate or enjoin a government action for violating a controlling law that does not provide a explicit right of action to the plaintiff to sue, but that’s not necessary when a statute provides an explicit cause of action.
What sort of mental gymnastics does one have to do to place blame on a third party when you have to seek, install the app and actively engage with?
What is preventing the parents from parenting?
I fully support this lawsuit, and I also fully support society taking a stand against algorithmic social media and platforms like YouTube. Moreover, I am saying this as a content creator myself who makes money!
The effects of algorithms trained to make the mind addicted are too subtle and too powerful to leave it to individuals to make their own choices about a healthy level of social media use. Moreover, most people already agree that Facebook and YouTube are not really healthy.
If implementing manipulative algorithms were restricted and made illegal with extremely heavy fines, it would improve all of society, and everyone would be happier except the executives of such companies and the people being paid outrageous salaries to make such platforms addictive. As a content creator, if the amount of money I made decreased a little, I would gladly accept that if it meant everyone else spent less time on the computer.
I am sickened at tech companies. Although I love programming, and worked as a programmer, I have vowed to never contribute a single line of code that could support such practices, and I suggest all programmers to do the same!
"The effects of [X] are too subtle and too powerful to leave it to individuals to make their own choices about a healthy level of [X]. Moreover, most people already agree that [X] are not really healthy."
I wholeheartedly disagree with the type of argument you are making.
I don’t doubt that some kids are negatively harmed by social media.
However, I’m a photographer that does high school senior shoots. I follow some of my clients, and the amount of support every single teen I’ve looked at gets on everything they post is astounding. It doesn’t matter what they look like, if they post a picture they’ll have dozens or hundreds of comments telling them how gorgeous they are. Even the guys get some, though not as much.
And yeah, it’s all a bit silly and vapid when everyone is saying that to everyone. You know it still feels good. I certainly could have used someone telling me I was attractive back in high school…as a guy the girl’s hints were a bit lost on me.
This lawsuit is an embarrassment using a compilation of anti social media arguments including misleading ones where the truth is twisted to make an argument.
>Meta also delays the time it takes to load the feed. “This is because without
that three-second delay, Instagram wouldn’t feel variable.”
This isn't a fact. They are literally quoting speculation from Vice while making it seem like an official quote from Meta. Twitter and Instagram take time to load the feed because it's a nontrivial operation. I'd expect adding fake delays to your app will just cause people to get annoyed and use your app less.
> They are literally quoting speculation from Vice while making it seem like an official quote from Meta.
They literally provide the exact source of the quote. It is speculation but it isn't unreasonable since we know they've made similar types if decisions to maximize engadgement.
No grandstanding in my opinion. Social media is a very dangerous and addictive drug that is difficult to police. It should be heavily regulated as it's destroying society.
[+] [-] finnh|3 years ago|reply
This feels like grasping in the dumbest possible way while ignoring the actual problem: if you bore the heck out of the kids, the ones who can afford to leave will. Also being bored 8 hours/day isn't good for mental health...
[0] https://www.kiro7.com/news/local/public-school-districts-exp...
[+] [-] kube-system|3 years ago|reply
When I was a kid, going to school was the social medium. Even the kids who skipped class physically came to school to meet up. Now that we’ve removed that incentive for attendance, no wonder kids don’t show up.
[+] [-] tempsy|3 years ago|reply
growing up is hard enough as it is and social media absolutely can be detrimental to mental health if used excessively.
imo the only reason we haven’t properly addressed the issue as a society is because it’s incredibly difficult to “prove” from a research perspective given the newness of social media.
[+] [-] spritefs|3 years ago|reply
I wish someone would compile a list of every school district that's doing this or planning on doing it, just for public knowledge purposes
[+] [-] roody15|3 years ago|reply
It’s sad because somehow the idea of equal opportunity has been replaced with equalized outcomes in education.
[+] [-] jeffbee|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] themitigating|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tw98521358|3 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] travisgriggs|3 years ago|reply
I find myself torn. They are often sound/reasoned arguments. But I also struggle because the state of play isn’t right either. Social media engagement is now one of the leading causes cited in divorces. My wife and I of nearly 30 years have to battle this ourselves. Something seems clearly wrong with our surveillance economy, yet we struggle to come up with sound reasoned diagnoses and remedies. I guess that’s why it persists.
So I end up both thinking this suit is “silly” and at the same time cheering them on because continued optimization along this evolving status quo vector just seems so obviously wrong.
[+] [-] idopmstuff|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jrm4|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] luckylion|3 years ago|reply
And what even is social media in that sense. Aren't forums social media? HN has a score and you and other will be told how "the community" values your comments. Sure, it's not emoji thumbs pointing up and down and a frowny face, but what's the difference? Should HN be outlawed because someone might attach their self-worth to getting upvotes? Should Reddit be?
I don't think the problem around social media is the "it's a feed full of trivial stuff that'll steal hours of your life", it's that you have to be on there if you want to have an active social life and not be an outsider. But if you take down facebook, instagram, twitter and tiktok, kids will find a new platform to flock to and to play their social games, bully some and make others celebrities. It's what they do, and now that the tech is here, they'll use it to do it.
I don't know how hard it is for today's kids, but I sure am glad that I went through puberty before internet was a big thing in my country.
[+] [-] spritefs|3 years ago|reply
Where'd you find this?
[+] [-] Chinjut|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] DueDilligence|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ryan93|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] danielfoster|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jbm|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mensetmanusman|3 years ago|reply
We need coordinated parenting on when to give children these devices.
[+] [-] mistrial9|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] psychphysic|3 years ago|reply
He said the name of ~the movie~ himself!
I'm certain that social media is contributing to worse outcomes with those at risk of mental health issues. But what can be done about it?
It's like trying to keep your kids from mixing with the wrong crowd.
[+] [-] sien|3 years ago|reply
From 1994 to now.
Percent with a driver's licence has gone from 84.7% to 72.7%, tried alcohol fro 81% to 66.1%, gone on dates from 83% to 58% and had a job from 71.7% to 55%
https://twitter.com/AlecStapp/status/1611500829441138688
Maybe less dates and less independence from adults is what is driving up depression. But it might be harder to sue parents.
[+] [-] rychco|3 years ago|reply
I don't see the (non-monetary) benefit unless there are new laws introduced that severely restrict how social media is allowed to operate or outright ban various addictive techniques employed by their platforms (which will need to be constantly amended because they'll come with addictive ideas faster than they can possibly be proven addictive).
[+] [-] shkkmo|3 years ago|reply
Precedent is a big one, but it is also possible that the court could order these companies to take specific steps to redress this harm.
[+] [-] fleddr|3 years ago|reply
Behavioral scientists can plot any metric against the last decade and it spectacularly deviates from what came before it, in a bad way. A seismic shift.
It's a problem. A massively complicated problem where regulation will be tricky. For the record, even Zuckerberg himself has practically begged for regulation in response to issues affecting teen girls specifically.
[+] [-] LarryMullins|3 years ago|reply
I recall this being criticized as Zuckerberg cynically trying to create an anti-competitive regulatory moat around Facebook. Seems plausible to me, I have a hard time believing that Zuck has a single sincere and benevolent bone in his body.
But even if he has cynical motivations for proposing it, that doesn't mean the idea itself is bad.
[+] [-] isitmadeofglass|3 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] slavboj|3 years ago|reply
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/childrens-risk-of...
[+] [-] LarryMullins|3 years ago|reply
TikTok though? I don't think so. No upside of TikTok can compare to the upside of receiving an education.
[+] [-] AuryGlenz|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] matheweis|3 years ago|reply
> suicides among 12-to-18-year-olds are highest during months of the school year and lowest during summer months
> returning [post lockdowns] from online to in-person schooling was associated with a 12-to-18 percent increase teen suicides.
https://www.nber.org/papers/w30795
[+] [-] lordfrito|3 years ago|reply
Understand that any time you leave your house you run the risk of having a bad day. So for kids, who regularly leave their house for school, it makes sense that the primary factor leading to a "bad day" for a kid would occur in or around campus. And I can totally believe there's a causal link between when someone chooses to commit suicide and the kind of day they were having.
I'm just not sure what you're suggesting. Are we all just supposed to stay home? That's not workable. You have to face the world.
Also you take a chance every time you get in your car to go anywhere. Doesn't mean we should avoid automobiles.
I'm not trying to be sarcastic... Just trying to understand the angle you're after with this stat.
[+] [-] tzs|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] xrd|3 years ago|reply
If you replace social media with drugs and high schoolers with homeless people, wouldn't it be more typical for people to be saying that elected officials aren't doing ANYTHING!
What's the difference?
I have read enough to know that these social media companies are employing behavioral scientists that are attempting to make their products addictive. And, I believe teenage brains are particularly succeptible. So this doesn't seem like grandstanding to me.
[+] [-] tedunangst|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dragonwriter|3 years ago|reply
You seem to be imaging the kind of analysis done for a suit that is not based on a statute providing liability, but on a conflict of laws trying to negate or enjoin a government action for violating a controlling law that does not provide a explicit right of action to the plaintiff to sue, but that’s not necessary when a statute provides an explicit cause of action.
[+] [-] nickphx|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mozman|3 years ago|reply
It’s more indoctrination than anything else at this point.
[+] [-] unknown|3 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] grecy|3 years ago|reply
Given that TikTock is Chinese, what happens if they lose a court case in the US? How can anyone force them to pay up or change their ways?
I assume the only outcome is either "pay up" or be banned in that jurisdiction? (Assuming they lose)
I can't help thinking this is like the all the three letter US agencies trying to force US law onto countries like Sweden for The Pirate Bay.
[+] [-] vouaobrasil|3 years ago|reply
The effects of algorithms trained to make the mind addicted are too subtle and too powerful to leave it to individuals to make their own choices about a healthy level of social media use. Moreover, most people already agree that Facebook and YouTube are not really healthy.
If implementing manipulative algorithms were restricted and made illegal with extremely heavy fines, it would improve all of society, and everyone would be happier except the executives of such companies and the people being paid outrageous salaries to make such platforms addictive. As a content creator, if the amount of money I made decreased a little, I would gladly accept that if it meant everyone else spent less time on the computer.
I am sickened at tech companies. Although I love programming, and worked as a programmer, I have vowed to never contribute a single line of code that could support such practices, and I suggest all programmers to do the same!
[+] [-] shaftoe|3 years ago|reply
I wholeheartedly disagree with the type of argument you are making.
[+] [-] AuryGlenz|3 years ago|reply
However, I’m a photographer that does high school senior shoots. I follow some of my clients, and the amount of support every single teen I’ve looked at gets on everything they post is astounding. It doesn’t matter what they look like, if they post a picture they’ll have dozens or hundreds of comments telling them how gorgeous they are. Even the guys get some, though not as much.
And yeah, it’s all a bit silly and vapid when everyone is saying that to everyone. You know it still feels good. I certainly could have used someone telling me I was attractive back in high school…as a guy the girl’s hints were a bit lost on me.
[+] [-] pipeline_peak|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] charcircuit|3 years ago|reply
>Meta also delays the time it takes to load the feed. “This is because without that three-second delay, Instagram wouldn’t feel variable.”
This isn't a fact. They are literally quoting speculation from Vice while making it seem like an official quote from Meta. Twitter and Instagram take time to load the feed because it's a nontrivial operation. I'd expect adding fake delays to your app will just cause people to get annoyed and use your app less.
[+] [-] shkkmo|3 years ago|reply
They literally provide the exact source of the quote. It is speculation but it isn't unreasonable since we know they've made similar types if decisions to maximize engadgement.
[+] [-] DueDilligence|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tqi|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] kaptainscarlet|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bozhark|3 years ago|reply