Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Social Networks The Internet

Major Psychologists' Group Warns of Social Media's Potential Harm To Kids (npr.org) 95

For the first time, the American Psychological Association (APA) has issued guidelines for teenagers, parents, teachers and policymakers on how to use social media, with the aim of reducing the rate of depression, anxiety and loneliness in adolescents. NPR reports: The 10 recommendations in the report summarize recent scientific findings and advise actions, primarily by parents, such as monitoring teens' feeds and training them in social media literacy, even before they begin using these platforms. But some therapists and clinicians say the recommendations place too much of the burden on parents. To implement this guidance requires cooperation from the tech companies and possibly regulators.

While social media can provide opportunities for staying connected, especially during periods of social isolation, like the pandemic, the APA says adolescents should be routinely screened for signs of "problematic social media use." The APA recommends that parents should also closely monitor their children's social media feed during early adolescence, roughly ages 10-14. Parents should try to minimize or stop the dangerous content their child is exposed to, including posts related to suicide, self-harm, disordered eating, racism and bullying. Studies suggest that exposure to this type of content may promote similar behavior in some youth, the APA notes.

Another key recommendation is to limit the use of social media for comparison, particularly around beauty -- or appearance-related content. Research suggests that when kids use social media to pore over their own and others' appearance online, this is linked with poor body image and depressive symptoms, particularly among girls. As kids age and gain digital literacy skills they should have more privacy and autonomy in their social media use, but parents should always keep an open dialogue about what they are doing online. The report also cautions parents to monitor their own social media use, citing research that shows that adults' attitudes toward social media and how they use it in front of kids may affect young people.

The APA's report does contain recommendations that could be picked up by policy makers seeking to regulate the industry. For instance it recommends the creation of "reporting structures" to identify and remove or deprioritize social media content depicting "illegal or psychologically maladaptive behavior," such as self-harm, harming others, and disordered eating. It also notes that the design of social media platforms may need to be changed to take into account "youths' development capabilities," including features like endless scrolling and recommended content. It suggests that teens should be warned "explicitly and repeatedly" about how their personal data could be stored, shared and used.

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Major Psychologists' Group Warns of Social Media's Potential Harm To Kids

Comments Filter:
  • by Baron_Yam ( 643147 ) on Tuesday May 09, 2023 @09:18PM (#63510003)

    1) Don't.

    2) When you do anyway and it ultimately starts pissing you off, don't fight back, drop out.

    3.1) Real friends at least occasionally meet in real life.

    3.2) That guy grooming you isn't going to become a friend if you meet up with him. ... I think 3.2 might possibly be the most important rule for kids to understand.

    • by gweihir ( 88907 )

      By all credible accounts, online "grooming" is actually very rare. The only reason it gets pushed as a real threat is likely because the surveillance-fascists need more "arguments" to push their evil agenda. Unfortunately, too many people cannot fact-check at all, so this strategy works.

    • Possible alternative rules.
      1) Learn how to hack/phreak/social engineer (don't do it). If you're going to understand the effect of something then mastering the dark arts of it is the biggest immunity to its effects. Security awareness is a must. You need to hammer home why it's important, not just randomly enforce https://blog.knowbe4.com/topic... [knowbe4.com].
      2) Gaming and getting salty has the same handbook. 20 minutes of screen time then walk away.
      3.1) 100%, possibly have a power outage/no screens day for kids. htt [youtube.com]
    • 3.3 If someone talks about grooming, they're likely a groomer.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 09, 2023 @09:28PM (#63510013)

    1. Download the Truth Social app so you know you are getting the BEST fact-checked, truthful news, and make sure your friends do, as well! #trump2024

  • Money first, social values later! Oh, and defer to "policy". If the lawyer says it's okay, GAME ON.

    Nevermind if the product actually HURTS people. That's THEIR problem.
    • Yeah, we're just fancy primates, and we are as subject to conditioning as any other animal.

      Social media conditions us, some of us in different directions than others depending on our initial exposure, sometimes in ways that make us better but usually not.

      If good people could be as sleazy as bad ones (and as economically successful so they'd have the opportunity), we could use social media to condition the public to be better.

      Too many pressures push it towards negative uses, and too many other pressures push

    • by gweihir ( 88907 )

      Social values have meaning to capitalists? News to me. True capitalists need not values except money and power.

  • Social contagion (Score:5, Insightful)

    by sinij ( 911942 ) on Tuesday May 09, 2023 @10:14PM (#63510065)
    A great deal of harm comes through social contagion. While I won't point to specifics, having digital "peer" pressure from some randos is highly detrimental to kids. Not giving a fuck about what others think about you is unnatural to humans.
    • A great deal of harm comes through social contagion. While I won't point to specifics, having digital "peer" pressure from some randos is highly detrimental to kids. Not giving a fuck about what others think about you is unnatural to humans.

      Actually, it isn't.

      A mature person considers themselves the architect of their own life. This can be measured anecdotally by asking a simple question: how much control do you have over your own life, in terms of percent, compared to how much your life is controlled by external factors?

      It's a trick question: every mature person, out on their own, having a job and not living with their parents(*) has complete control over their own lives, and you are only fully mature once you realize this.

      If you're comfortab

      • by skam240 ( 789197 ) on Wednesday May 10, 2023 @04:27AM (#63510463)

        It's a trick question: every mature person, out on their own, having a job and not living with their parents(*) has complete control over their own lives, and you are only fully mature once you realize this.

        That would be wonderful if true but it very obviously isn't. Complete control would mean no one was ever laid off from work due to falling corporate profits they have no control over. Complete control would mean no one ever had their marriage ruined by a cheating spouse. Complete control would mean no one was ever horribly injured in an auto accident caused by someone else.

        Life is full of random shots one has to roll with and complete control is an utter illusion. This is the understanding mature people have.

        • Other than than the injuries from the car accident your examples should be looked at as opportunities. Lose your job? Maybe you can get one now which doesn't make you miserable. Wife cheats = no alimony and can bang other women without abandon again. Even the injuries might not be so bad if you get one of those sheister tv lawyers and get a nice payday.
        • It's a trick question: every mature person, out on their own, having a job and not living with their parents(*) has complete control over their own lives, and you are only fully mature once you realize this.

          That would be wonderful if true but it very obviously isn't. Complete control would mean no one was ever laid off from work due to falling corporate profits they have no control over. Complete control would mean no one ever had their marriage ruined by a cheating spouse. Complete control would mean no one was ever horribly injured in an auto accident caused by someone else.

          Life is full of random shots one has to roll with and complete control is an utter illusion. This is the understanding mature people have.

          And even then this discounts government control over your life. Sure, some people will say as an adult you can just move if you don't like the government, but really no matter where on earth you go some government or another will have control over your life. Whether you can have an abortion. Whether you can own guns (and what kind). Whether you can smoke pot, or have a beer in public. Whether you can own a pitbull, or a gas stove, or (soon) an ICE powered car.

          Now I have no issue with breaking stupid l

      • Lots and lots of highly successful people don't seem to care what other people think of them, they score low on trait agreeableness in the Big 5 model which is normally distributed. It's a strong predictor for starting and running a successful business: if you can stick to your goals when other people disagree or don't think something will work, your chances are better than when you switch goals at every criticism.

        You mean psychopaths [washingtonpost.com]?

      • Even if your comment is true (doubtful), you're talking about "mature" people. The article is about kids, who often don't have a solid self-image and are infinitely more vulnerable to this kind of stuff.

      • by ranton ( 36917 )

        Not giving a fuck about what others think about you is unnatural to humans.

        Actually, it isn't.

        How can you possibly believe that? Humans are social animals. You may feel that a mature modern human is capable of fighting their natural tendencies, but that doesn't change the fact that humans are hardwired to be social. We naturally care what our peers think about us, and for the vast majority of us how others think about us is one of the most influential factors in life well-being and success.

      • Neurologically speaking, you're wrong. Being accepted in a group is a core function of our primate brain. Which is why sports events are such a success.
        You might be able to power through it by a different reinforcement strategy, but then you're basically in social detox for your entire life. Unless you've been born a psychopath...

        > This can be measured anecdotally by asking a simple question: how much control do you have over your own life, in terms of percent, compared to how much your life is controll

    • Not giving a fuck about what others think about you is unnatural to humans.

      All the more reason the Serenity prayer tends to still speak very well to every human all these years later. I'm pretty certain Ignorance has validated how ignoring the prayer's advice and putting everything into what others think, creates predictable humans.

      If social media disappeared tomorrow, bullying would unfortunately continue as it has for centuries prior. If you're looking for the actual "unnatural" entity here, that would be the whole social media targeting every man, woman, and child to turn the

    • Believe me, accidentally displaying that one doesn't give a fuck about what most others think can trigger the most unbelievable anger in some people. After 55 years I'm only starting to figure out why, insofar as I care.

      No, I don't care about your opinion. I don't know you.
      No, I don't care about your feelings, I don't know you.
      On a base human level, sure, I'd rather people not be in pain or suffering than otherwise but 99.99999% of humans out there could individually die and I literally wouldn't notice.
      I

  • When you choose to be a parent you are creating and accepting a responsibility. Take care of your children. Don't expect the school to parent your children. Don't expect "big tech" --whomever the bad guy is today-- from doing it. YOU do it.

    When you tell a kid "You're grounded" you don't put a perimeter alarm around your house and contact the door manufacturer and the lockmaker to ensure they support your role. It's up to you --the parent-- to establish that punishment and the kid is grounded.

    That is ne

    • When you choose to be a parent you are creating and accepting a responsibility. Take care of your children. Don't expect the school to parent your children. Don't expect "big tech" --whomever the bad guy is today-- from doing it. YOU do it.

      When you tell a kid "You're grounded" you don't put a perimeter alarm around your house and contact the door manufacturer and the lockmaker to ensure they support your role. It's up to you --the parent-- to establish that punishment and the kid is grounded.

      That is neither more true or less true when it comes to Netflix, iPad, YouTube, or whatever. It's not THEIR responsibility to raise your kid, it's YOUR responsibility. You chose it. If you can't handle it, you're no parent. This includes passive-aggressive behavior of shutting off the WiFI or taking away their iToy. Don't do it. Teach your kid to put it down by the household rules you set.

      If you choose to be a parent, be the parent. Don't offload that responsibility to any of the so-called big-anything firms. You be firm.

      I can tell you're not a parent. And if you are, I can tell you weren't very involved with your kids...you were probably one of those dicks who came home from work, ignored your kids while you sat in your easy chair, drank a beer and seethed at the world like dads did when you were a kid...but really given how confident you are of yourself, I'll wager you don't have children...probably not even a wife.

      It's easy to armchair parent and opine on what parents are doing right and wrong these days. Hell, I h

      • I think you missed the point that the OP made from your reply. You say you took away means to watch the video as did the other parents, but did you actually discuss the video and why you think it's bad with your kid and listened to why they want to see it?

        OP said "Teach your kid to put down the video". Teach, not take access away from something they are curious about and might enjoy for the wrong reason. You were young once (presumably), so you know what you were (not) thinking as a kid about old people tel

        • by Ormy ( 1430821 )

          I think you missed the point that the OP made from your reply. You say you took away means to watch the video as did the other parents, but did you actually discuss the video and why you think it's bad with your kid and listened to why they want to see it?

          Agree with this 100%. Somervillian's example shows exactly what is wrong with modern parenting. Rather than educating the kid about why the video was inappropriate, discussing why the kid has a strong desire to watch it, discussing the harm it might cause, etc etc, somervillian simply tried to deny access, which anyone with common sense can tell you isn't going to work, ever. I also agree 100% with the GP (gavron).

          I am married, I work with kids regularly, but we (me & my wife) have agreed we will nev

          • by DarkOx ( 621550 )

            Actual parent here -

            Let me explain something to non-parents. Kids change, actually they change a lot very quickly. A three year old is not four year old, is not a six year old, is not an eight year old, is not a twelve year old, girls and not like boys and so on.

            Actual parents operate in a world where what was successful and appropriate six months prior does not work at all now! Some things kids just are not ready for and sometimes kids are not even mature enough to hear and understand / accept that. Some

        • by ranton ( 36917 )

          I think you missed the point that the OP made from your reply. You say you took away means to watch the video as did the other parents, but did you actually discuss the video and why you think it's bad with your kid and listened to why they want to see it? [...] And FYI, I don't have kids.

          Oh for gods sake, you can really tell you don't have kids either. You should have led with that. Did you really listen to everything your parents told you to do? Did you always agree with them regarding what inappropriate behavior was? It is far more difficult today than it was 40 years ago to raise a child, and it wasn't that easy back then.

          I had an uncle who was a psychiatrist who raised three successful children himself, and he gave me some of the best advise of my life when it comes to parenting. He sai

        • I think you missed the point that the OP made from your reply. You say you took away means to watch the video as did the other parents, but did you actually discuss the video and why you think it's bad with your kid and listened to why they want to see it?

          That's the first thing I did. For brevity, I didn't enumerate everything. But yeah, we start with an explanation. "Hey buddy, we can't watch videos like that." He's making fun of your classmates that are differently enabled, like Jerry. Do you want to hurt Jerry? What about Jerry's mommy? She'd be crying if she heard you repeat that. Let's stop watching videos from that channel. You cannot ever say that word. It's very cruel and hurtful and you'll get in a lot of trouble if you said that on the bu

      • by skam240 ( 789197 )

        My young kid watched some inappropriate videos and started repeating what he heard. We took away YouTube...uninstalled the app...5 min later, he's watching the same video in a browser...OK, so we take away his devices...goes to a friend's house and watches it there...

        Jesus, did you at any point punish your kid? If he's working around his parents like they he should be grounded and if you didn't punish them at all then there's your problem right there

        • Right? Why was he at a friend's house? Why was he at the library? Why was he anywhere but in his room stripped of all electronic devices?

          I think the parent missed the point of what "grounding" means.

        • My young kid watched some inappropriate videos and started repeating what he heard. We took away YouTube...uninstalled the app...5 min later, he's watching the same video in a browser...OK, so we take away his devices...goes to a friend's house and watches it there...

          Jesus, did you at any point punish your kid? If he's working around his parents like they he should be grounded and if you didn't punish them at all then there's your problem right there

          Taking away devices is punishment. "Grounding" a kid today ironically is the opposite of punishment. They'd rather be indoors than outdoors. However, yes, things were taken away, device access was limited, apps were removed. If you did this to 10yo me, I'd hate it and stop immediately. Some kids are discipline-proof. Nothing you can do can deter them. My son is nearly that and I know about 3 kids who are worse cannot be disciplined...take away EVERYTHING and they will still do it. There's something

          • by skam240 ( 789197 )

            Taking away devices is punishment. "Grounding" a kid today ironically is the opposite of punishment. They'd rather be indoors than outdoors.

            Then you put them outside doing yard work and washing your car all day.

            As for the rest, I dont have kids but I did spend 18 years as one and have spent plenty of time around them between family and friends and I was horrified by how little your one child seems to care about what you tell them at least according to what you've told me here. They give so little of a fuck that they dont even cover their tracks.

            It seems to me there's a problem happening somewhere if what you describe is normal behavior as that

            • It seems to me there's a problem happening somewhere if what you describe is normal behavior as that level of defiance is pretty extreme if the norm. What do I know though, right?

              "some" problem is happening, for sure. However, I know maybe less than 50 families and probably 3-5 kids who are discipline-proof without obvious reasons why....even worse than my own kid. I know some of the families well and they do everything right...from super-healthy-eating to parental involvement...to providing a safe secure home with lots of consistency.

              In the past, we just assumed everyone was a shit parent. It's trendy to make jokes about parents trying to medicate their kids into submission.

      • Want a simple example? My young kid watched some inappropriate videos and started repeating what he heard. We took away YouTube...uninstalled the app...5 min later, he's watching the same video in a browser...OK, so we take away his devices...goes to a friend's house and watches it there...so we talk to the parents and they agree the video is inappropriate and stop it from being watched...then asks to go to the library...watches the video there...I stop him...he does it at school. So yeah, that didn't work out...it's easy to opine...hard to implement

        Yep.

        There's only so much you can do, especially these days. The world expects you to magically somehow be responsible for what your kids do, and then the very same world treats you with suspicion and disdain if you actually try to monitor or guide anything that they do.

        Kind of like being expected to make bricks without straw ...

      • No mate, you're just a shit parent. I don't let my kid anywhere near social media or youtube. Uninstalling the youtube app? What the fuck reason do you have to even give your child a fucking thousand dollar device in the first place? I see this stupidity in the parents of my child's friends; moaning about how it's hard to keep their child off social media blah blah. It's fucking not hard if they simply have no access or *desire* to use it in the first place. You know what works? Doing shit with your kid; go
        • No mate, you're just a shit parent. I don't let my kid anywhere near social media or youtube. Uninstalling the youtube app? What the fuck reason do you have to even give your child a fucking thousand dollar device in the first place? I see this stupidity in the parents of my child's friends; moaning about how it's hard to keep their child off social media blah blah. It's fucking not hard if they simply have no access or *desire* to use it in the first place. You know what works? Doing shit with your kid; going outside, activities, hobbies etc. Ah but I suppose I am just one of those idealists who never had kids. Oh well.

          Activities? hobbies?...getting out in nature?...we do it all...and a LOT of it...again, do you think you're the only human being with common sense? We've tried all this. $1000 device?...an iPad is $300...and kids typically get used ones anyway and if you had any clue about parenting, you would know a device is mandatory and they don't cost that much. What are you in Russia and having to smuggle them? How can you be so ignorant as to the cost of an iPad? If you don't provide one, your school will. 2 ye

          • I do, in fact, have a child. Not only do I have a child, but the exact opposite of what you're insinuating with involvement is true. My wife and I have nobody else in our immediate family nearby to do anything remotely related to giving us time off. I think the last time we went out by ourselves was at least 2 years ago. We are frequently the only couple who will show up with our child to birthday parties or other child related events. Everyone else usually ships the child with one parent while the other fu
        • by ranton ( 36917 )

          89% of teenagers have mobile devices in 2023. You may think 89% of parents are shit parents, but that is a very bold statement. I personally question the judgement of any parent who doesn't give their teenager some form of mobile device in today's world, other than for financial hardship reasons. It is a very big part of the social lives of children today; almost analogous to preventing your kid of hanging out with friends outside of school would have been 40 years ago. Limiting access to social media is a

          • A mobile device that can send and receive calls and text, sure. But no, there'll absolutely not be any tiktok, insta, whatever else social media usage. I'm not really alone here, either - the parents of kids I know who work in tech, or any field related to computers/electronic communication etc. are all of the same frame of mind. It is hard to overstate how detrimental an effect social media use has on children. Fuck it, it's pretty much bad for absolutely everyone. This is our generation's equivalent of sm
  • It doesn't take a PhD to figure this out.

    The "Let everyone do anything" mentality doesn't make a good parent.

    --
    My mother said to me, 'If you are a soldier, you will become a general. If you are a monk, you will become the Pope.' Instead, I was a painter, and became Picasso. - Pablo Picasso

    • by fazig ( 2909523 )
      Scientific due diligence.
      That is what science, especially in those fields has to do very often, where even if it seems rather obvious it's good to have some more backing up by data. It helps against those "the science isn't in yet" kind of people who will dismiss whatever claim for reasons.

      See climate change denial for example which of course also makes it evident that you'll never be able to convince all people as there will always be some who stick to their convictions and regardless of the amount of e
  • Without enough to eat. With the cuts to WIC they're are pregnant women not getting enough nutrition. Do we have massive amounts of pollutants in water and air where children live. All of these have way way bigger effects on child's psychology then too much screen time.

    Funny how I see a never-ending cavalcade stories about social media and children but I've got to go deep in the left wing press to find anyone talking about the other issues I've just raised. Once in a blue moon CNN will do a feel good sto
  • Like, oh, Psychology?

    Psychologists must fix their own house, learn that facts are more important than silly opinions, THEN they can give others advice.
  • Don't let them use social media, drug the living fuck out of them instead [madinamerica.com].

    A stopped clock is right twice a day, but regardless, fuck the APA.

    • You should learn the difference between a psychologist and a psychiatrist.

      • by fazig ( 2909523 )
        Yup, looks like it's two different organizations with the same acronym:
        https://www.apa.org/ [apa.org]
        https://www.psychiatry.org/ [psychiatry.org]

        The article talks about the former, much larger organization, which also does not author the DSM.

        Also something more general: While there are psychologists who can prescribe drugs, after they've obtained some qualification in psychopharmacology to do so, that is not a requirement for them to work as psychologist. To use another anecdote: all psychologist I've wrote software for and w
      • You should pay your own mortgage, you lazy parasite. Fuck you for exploiting people. Fuck you.
  • Did we really benefit from social media as much as it took away?
    Maximizing engagement is the drive, and these are some of the side effects.
    APA has phoned it in with this analysis.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
  • Acknowledging that children have already committed suicide because of bullying on social media, this statement should not require any degree.
    • Acknowledging that children have already committed suicide because of bullying on social media, this statement should not require any degree.

      Acknowledging that more than half of all gun deaths in America are from suicide is also a rather simple statement to understand, but much like this issue we have to dance around the problems perpetuated by Greed wanting to put the answer to every human problem in the bottom of a prescription pill bottle and pretend the resulting mental health elephant in the room doesn't exist**, because shareholders.

      ** = Difficulty: 11/10. At last check, the room is 3.3 feet deep in elephant shit.

  • My daughter is 10 and I understand she needs/want some privacy. If I would start to "closely monitor" her social media activity, surely she would move to use some other channels I don't know about. Also, it would probably drive me nuts if I would watch all the K-pop videos she and fer friends share on WhatsApp to avoid parental control.

  • what took so long?
  • We went in five minutes (historically speaking) from smart families keeping the internet connected PC in the living room (to keep an eye on things) to basically issuing pocket internet connected computers with cameras and microphones to every little kid.

    What could go wrong? lol

  • by Qbertino ( 265505 ) <moiraNO@SPAMmodparlor.com> on Wednesday May 10, 2023 @05:59AM (#63510553)

    ... paranoid. I'm glad she listened.

    The prime rule being:
    Don't ever use daily social media without a spoof account that you can replace in 30 minutes or less.

    We all had a "pseudo" before we even had a computer, let alone a modem back in the 80ies. I've always kept it that way and haven't met a single IT expert that I respect who doesn't handle things the same way.

    One mailadress with the real name for serious things, at least one spoof account for everything else.

    To this day my daughter follows this rule and handles any social media fad like a pro. She even made separate accounts for when she went on foreign student exchanges so she could vanish should things get nasty or otherwise go south online. That's daddy's smart girl right there showing how this is done.

    I'm proud of her, as you can tell. :-)

    • You taught your daughter to produce a front where you can see that she appears to follow your paranoid rules, and she does just enough to keep you from nagging her with your paranoia every time she sees you.

      Unless you're literally looking over her shoulder, you don't know how she actually uses her social media. You've probably persuaded her to do just enough to keep you off her case. Probably, even if you were looking over her shoulder, she'd be able to prevent you from seeing enough to actually work out w

      • > You taught your daughter to produce a front
        That was the entire point.
        The rest is on trust/confidence between parent/child.

      • We don't raise our children with the intent to control them. We raise them with sound morals and judgement to be able to exercise that control on their own as grown-ass adults. Knowing a few key tactics in our digital world sure can help.

        Speaking of paranoia, you really took it to a whole new level with the assumptions. A "front" isn't really necessary when trust is inherent. That starts with trusting your parenting skills. Ends with trusting the one you're spending considerable time and effort to impa

  • 1. Keep an eye on what your kids are doing

    2. Enforce our far-left political views and identity politics, you racists.

    3. Give us more money to study this, because apparently, we haven't studied it enough to make good recommendations.

  • How can a social media billionaire aspire to be a trillionaire if you stop him (it's almost certain to be a "him") from monetising every person who comes into his system's reach for every cent they can get?

    Next thing you know, you'll be demanding that they actually check passports and birth certificates to prevent minors (under-21 in America, isn't it?) from joining their data-collection networks. And they're never going to do that - that would stop them from becoming even a billionaire.

  • NPR?? (Score:1, Insightful)

    by La Onza ( 7334544 )

    My decades long experience with NPR - in which I evolved from a strident young fan listening with my parents to a disappointed ex-listener - shows me that almost without exception they will report in a one sided, biased manner. Nothing coming out of NPR will contradict their over arching narrative. What percentage of NPR employees would you guess vote republican? Anywhere near the national average? Not a chance if you ask me. My guess is less than 10%. Next article...

  • Comment removed based on user account deletion
  • Youngsters do not go to Facebook, because their parents are there.

Do molecular biologists wear designer genes?

Working...