Surgeon General: There Isn't Enough Evidence That Social Media Is Safe For Kids (statnews.com) 137
An anonymous reader quotes a report from STAT News: Amid what he called the worst youth mental health crisis in recent memory, U.S. Surgeon General Vivek Murthy issued an advisory Tuesday warning about social media's impact on developing young brains. "Through the last two and a half years I've been in office, I've been hearing concerns from kids and parents," Murthy told STAT. "Parents are asking 'Is social media safe for my kids?' Based on our review of the data, there isn't enough evidence that it is safe for our kids."
The advisory calls on policymakers and technology companies to take steps to minimize the risks of social media. "This is not going to be an issue that we solve with one sector alone," Murthy said. Policymakers, according to the report, need to develop age restrictions and safety standards for social media -- much like the regulations that the U.S. has in place for everything from cars to medicine. Specifically, Murthy would like to see policymakers require a higher standard of data privacy for children to protect them from potential harms like exploitation and abuse. Technology companies, meanwhile, need to be more transparent about the data they share, according to Murthy. He calls on companies to assess the potential risks of online interactions and take active steps to prevent potential misuse. He also suggests the establishment of scientific advisory committees to inform approaches and policies aimed at creating safe online environments for children.
The advisory also suggests families attempt to protect young people's mental health by developing a family media plan aimed at establishing healthy technology boundaries at home, such as creating "tech-free zones" that restrict phone use during certain hours or family mealtime. But Murthy noted that parents are already at the end of their rope in trying to manage how their children are exposed to and using this rapidly evolving technology. That responsibility has fallen entirely on them up to this point. "We've got to move quickly," he said. "None of us should be satisfied until we have clear evidence that these platforms are safe." The surgeon general's report comes two weeks after the American Psychological Association issued a health advisory on teens and social media use. The group noted the increased risk of anxiety and depression among adolescents who are exposed to discrimination and bullying online. "Other research has shown that adolescents ages 12-15 who spent more than three hours per day on social media face a heightened risk of experiencing poor mental health outcomes compared to those who spent less time online," adds STAT News.
The advisory calls on policymakers and technology companies to take steps to minimize the risks of social media. "This is not going to be an issue that we solve with one sector alone," Murthy said. Policymakers, according to the report, need to develop age restrictions and safety standards for social media -- much like the regulations that the U.S. has in place for everything from cars to medicine. Specifically, Murthy would like to see policymakers require a higher standard of data privacy for children to protect them from potential harms like exploitation and abuse. Technology companies, meanwhile, need to be more transparent about the data they share, according to Murthy. He calls on companies to assess the potential risks of online interactions and take active steps to prevent potential misuse. He also suggests the establishment of scientific advisory committees to inform approaches and policies aimed at creating safe online environments for children.
The advisory also suggests families attempt to protect young people's mental health by developing a family media plan aimed at establishing healthy technology boundaries at home, such as creating "tech-free zones" that restrict phone use during certain hours or family mealtime. But Murthy noted that parents are already at the end of their rope in trying to manage how their children are exposed to and using this rapidly evolving technology. That responsibility has fallen entirely on them up to this point. "We've got to move quickly," he said. "None of us should be satisfied until we have clear evidence that these platforms are safe." The surgeon general's report comes two weeks after the American Psychological Association issued a health advisory on teens and social media use. The group noted the increased risk of anxiety and depression among adolescents who are exposed to discrimination and bullying online. "Other research has shown that adolescents ages 12-15 who spent more than three hours per day on social media face a heightened risk of experiencing poor mental health outcomes compared to those who spent less time online," adds STAT News.
Safe for kids? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Safe for kids? (Score:4)
Is there evidence that it's safe for adults?
No, but why are you even asking that question? Alcohol and tobacco alone validate why profits are far more important than health. It's not like either of those products has created a real benefit for the user consuming or abusing it. Greed has benefited greatly, which is all that matters at the end of the fiscal quarter.
Let me know when you wish to cross that line with grown-ass adults charged by society with making their own decisions in life. I'd like to grab my popcorn.
Re:Safe for kids? (Score:4, Insightful)
If that's true, then why have marijuana and magic mushrooms been federally illegal for so long?
Re:Safe for kids? (Score:4, Informative)
Private prisons along with all the companies who sell them supplies. Plus it gives cops an excuse to pull people over. They smelled marijuana and now need a drug dog to tear apart your car.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Private prisons along with all the companies who sell them supplies. Plus it gives cops an excuse to pull people over. They smelled marijuana and now need a drug dog to tear apart your car.
You put it quite succinctly. In fact police unions spend the most lobbying against cannabis, followed by the private prison industry, and then tobacco and beer companies.
Re: (Score:2)
In fact police unions spend the most lobbying against cannabis
It's probably their best and one of the most commonly pretexts for pulling folks over and doing illegal searches. It's got the convenient knock-on effect that once you have someone you can charge, you can also use civil asset forfeiture to rob them of all their cash and any valuable property like a sportscar, house, or boats. "Leavin your slum when they drive home far from the hood brothers they eager to jump on I'd like to be the wall that they post up on, I'd like to see them fall, guilty for doing wrong"
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, although the police certainly took advantage of it, it was mostly the lumber barons. When marijuana was first outlawed in 1937, they were looking to kill the non-drug hemp industry which was threatening to provide a superior alternative to wood pulp paper. Marijuana was a convenient handle to do this with. Add in the then-current frenzy of drug regulation, some of which was justified (Heroin was banned only a little earlier) and you got the current situation (the 1937 law was found to be uncons
Re: (Score:2)
So it was still a matter of putting profit above all else, its just that the stronger lobby, in this case, was one that profited from keeping it illegal.
Interesting.
Re: (Score:3)
Well, for marijuana, it's easy. Hemp is a useful fibre and various industries, notably paper, felt threatened by it so they had it banned. The fact it has a more potent cousin simply made it easier to get it banned.
A lot of laws are like that. The NRA got a law passed that keeps the CDC from studying gun deaths, for example or anything that might peripherally be related to gun deaths, like suicides that used guns.
Re:Safe for kids? (Score:4, Insightful)
The law you mention does not, in fact, prevent research into health-related aspects of firearm use and abuse. It was a 1996 spending bill, and the so-called the Dickey amendment, which states that "none of the funds made available for injury prevention and control at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) may be used to advocate or promote gun control." The CDC may perform research, and can present the results of the research. But they are prohibited from advocacy--advocacy that likely would be trying to promote unconstitutional laws.
If the CDC did research into connections between Slashdot usage and mass-murder, concluded that Slashdot use strongly correlates with mass-murder, and began advocating for a revocation of the 1st amendment, or even "common-sense" regulations like mandatory licensing for Slashdot users, where to use Slashdot one had to present a photo ID and complete 16 hours of training on the proper, government approved uses of Slashdot , I hope the ACLU would be spending a lot of their money to fight that like the NRA did for gun rights.
Further, despite efforts to remove the Dickey, Congress passed new spending regulations that say that "while the amendment itself remains, the language in a report accompanying the Omnibus spending bill clarifies that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention can indeed conduct research into gun violence, but cannot use government appropriated funds to specifically advocate for gun control. It was signed into law by Trump in 2018.
Re: (Score:3)
Which effectively neuters any research since if that research shows reducing the number of deaths could be accomplished with more strict laws, the CDC could not say that since that would be advocating for gun control.
It was signed into law by Trump in 2018.
Even more reason why the wording is what it is. He can claim he prevented research into gun deaths and by extension, gun control.
As a side note, Te
Whaddabout refined sugar in foods? (Score:3)
There's no evidence that refined sugar is safe in foods.
Of course, proving that something is safe is a completely different evidential burden to proving that something is unsafe.
Re: (Score:2)
For instance, tobacco when used as directed will probably kill you and hurt those in the vicinity.
The gv'mnt that cares so much for our health collects massive taxes on the sale of the murderous substance and 'generously' sends a portion of their blood money back to the tobacco companies and growers.
Re:Safe for kids? (Score:5, Funny)
I'm not.
You just had to be different, didn't you?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Heh. You know how it is, everyone's a unique snowflake, just like everyone else.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So, we should keep kids off Slashdot? Is Slashdot safe?
Is there any objective evidence that it is unsafe? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
It's not that hard to act like an informed adult. Here let me help you. From my own links:
59% of children have experience some form of cyber bullying online.
20% of
Re: (Score:3)
It's exactly the same fallacy as no evidence its safe meaning it is by default dangerous. But go on, pull out anecdata. Nobody's questioning whether things can go wrong with social media. It's more a question of whether it's inherent to what it is or if it is solvable without throwing it out entirely.
Re: (Score:2)
Just because something is a study doesn't mean it isn't anecdata outside its own context. Something happened "online" a certain amount - that's a statistic. That isn't actually a study on how social media specifically led to it and whether it's a problem with social media itself or specific implementation details.
Re: (Score:3)
The problem is that "safety" is such a vague word that something can be both "safe" and "unsafe" at the same time depending on what you mean and how you are looking at that thing. For example, someone who drives his car as if cars were not dangerous is irresponsible, but someone who refuses to drive his car because he is afraid fo it has a phobia.
This is a bug in *language*, not *reality*. We use "safe" to mean all these things: "unable to hurt someone", "unlikely to hurt someone", and "presenting a tolerab
Re: (Score:2)
All those things existed before social media. The issue could also be that we're raising kids to be less able to deal with negativity. We've been coddling kids the past 20 years. All the 'safe spaces', 'trigger warnings', 'words are a threat to lives', etc. We're trying to act like conflict does not exist in the real world. That people don't disagree. And we're trying to shield kids from this by censoring 'bad' words. We really need to go back to toughening up kids and preparing them for an imperfect
Re: (Score:2)
https://www.hhs.gov/sites/defa... [hhs.gov]
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Do you have kids? I have a young teen daughter. The damage social media can cause is obvious to anyone with kids who pays the slightest attention to their kid's lives.
I've been discussing this with her for years. And I have the benefit of having worked at multiple social media companies so I know how shitty they truly are and share those experiences with her,
I entirely blocked TikTok at our house at the router. She still has access to it on her phone and I've discussed her usage with her at length to ma
There's scads of evidence. (Score:2)
Doesn't matter. Nobody should be interested in playing, "catch me if you can" with this. You can't just put an unlabelled bottle of green sludge in a convenience store fridge and sell it to children, saying, "Nobody has prove it's not safe!"
Re: (Score:2)
IMO, this should be fairly easy to determine on an individual basis, and the process works for almost any non-essential "thing" available to your kids: Take it away.
If you take it away, and they're fine (move on to a different hobby, spend time with friends, whatever), it's probably not harming them. If they have a meltdown, or don't know what to do with themselves, it's probably bad for them.
Re: (Score:3)
I mean the Surgeon General releases a report -- what this slashdot story is about -- and the poster doesn't even look at it.
Re:Is there any objective evidence that it is unsa (Score:4, Interesting)
How many more 12-year old girls have to commit suicide before you are willing to even acknowledge there's a problem here?
In the U.S, male adolescents die by suicide at a rate five times greater than that of female adolescents.
Why did you specify "girls" in your post? You think it's important to address the smaller problem and ignore the bigger problem?
Re:Is there any objective evidence that it is unsa (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
The species is superfluous, you don't need humans for life to thrive on the planet.
And the only humans necessary... (Score:2)
After which, the planet may not even be necessary. There's a whole wide universe out there.
Re: (Score:2)
- Dr. Strangelove: Regrettably, yes. But it is, you know, a sacrifice required for the future of the human race. I hasten to add that since each man will be required to do prodigious... service along these lines, the women will have to be selected for their sexual characteristics which w
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Is there any objective evidence that it is uns (Score:2)
>Why did you specify "girls" in your post? You think it's important to address the smaller problem and ignore the bigger problem?
Girls are well evidenced to be at far higher risk of socially contagious mental health issues and issues from comparing themselves to others. Like how boys and girls differ in they're impacted by broken homes, it could make sense to handle them differently on social media. Of course that's impossible as it would be labelled as sexist biological deterministic patriarchy.
Re: (Score:2)
What evidence is there that the suicide rate is linked specifically to social media? Suicide certainly didn't just become a thing when people starting using facebook.
Looking at suicide trends https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org], there has been an upward trend in suicides since 1999. But facebook wasn't founded until 2004. Overall, the rates are only slightly higher now, than they were in 1986.
Facts matter, just because we don't like facebook (which I don't) doesn't mean we can blame it for all the ills of soc
Re: (Score:2)
Teen suicide rates didn't start to go back up until 2007/2008. When was Facebook founded again?
Re: (Score:2)
That does provide some context. However, these days, teens aren't on facebook any more, they've moved on. facebook is now for "boomers." I think they decided they weren't so thrilled about being on the site once their own parents started getting on (and being able to see what they're doing)!
This is significant (Score:4, Insightful)
Not this advice, but how he got there. Not "there isn't enough data to answer your question" but "there isn't enough data to answer your question positively, therefore the answer is negative".
What you think of children and social media notwithstanding. (And should you ask: I say, staying off social media is the healthier option for all ages.)
It's "we don't know it's good therefore it must be bad". And that is of significance as national advice from a surgeon general, moreso one serving a decidedly progressive administration.
Re: (Score:3)
Oh that television, rotting children’s minds.
Oh those dirty song lyrics, rotting children’s minds.
Oh those trashy comic books rotting children’s minds.
Oh that rock and roll music
This is nothing new.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
How many of those things caused kids to kill the selves after being the subject of bullying and humiliation by classmates? Or become anorexic? Or do some stupid TikTok challenge and end up dead or in the hospital or picked up by the cops?
You don't have kids, do you?
Re: (Score:2)
Before people could initiate these things electronically the same things happened in person. Social media might be an accelerant with how it is designed, but saying it's the root source ignores that these things happen in some form to every generation.
Re: (Score:2)
Peer pressure and bullying never existed before social media?
Re: (Score:2)
Of course it did but not at scale and not at push of a button to tell 500+ other kids evil shit about some victim kid.
Again, I'll bet you don't have kids under 18 or anywhere close.
Re: (Score:2)
1984 - An Ozzy Osbourne fan commits suicide, his parents sue Ozzy.
https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/an-ozzy-osbourne-fan-commits-suicide [history.com]
That was only the most newsworthy example I could find, but there was a lot of similar noise at the time.
You'll find out as you get older that yes, history does repeat itself.
Just like your parents didn't like or understand what you liked, you'll have concerns about what your kids and their friends get into.
Assuming that you have kids yourself.
Re: (Score:2)
Problem is I’m an adult and don’t feel that mainstream social media is good for me I can tell it’s not good for many of the other adults I encounter. Teenagers themselves express that social media is toxic.
The only teenagers saying that Ozzy was bad were fresh out of Jesus camp.
Re: (Score:2)
Except sometimes it is new.
Television, music, comics, music - again, were all things Children socialized over, social media is something they social thru. Additionally while those things you mentioned might have exposed kids to ideas that did not emerge organically with in their peer group they still had the same peer group, with its same hysteresis around what modal behavior was and what is acceptable.
social media suddenly makes them peers with people separated by age, geography, nation, class, in ways no
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's "we don't know it's good therefore it must be bad".
This is definitely the most concerning part. Because I cannot say for certain that going outside is safe. We have coyote's (4-legged kind) attacking small animals all the time, even a young girl taken to the hospital with bites from one. Countless shootings, traffic accidents, violent encounters of all sorts. It's really scary out there, I have no evidence it is safe, do I tell my children never to leave home?
Social media is stupid, most of us can ag
Obvious solution... (Score:2)
Nationally make social media adult only....over 18yrs or no social media.
We treat adult things like alcohol, tobacco, gambling, etc as adult only.
Why are we not doing this...?
Hell, the improvements would be seen almost immediately...we'd have kids actually interacting in PERSON gain, gaining social skills.
No wonder younger people aren't fucking as much anymore...they have their head stuck in a damned
Re: (Score:3)
Nationally make social media adult only....over 18yrs or no social media.
No wonder younger people aren't fucking as much anymore...they have their head stuck in a damned phone 99% of the time, and only get off social media to get "off" on pr0n it seems.
pr0n, famously (legally) available to those under 18
Re: (Score:2)
pr0n, famously available to everyone everywhere on the internets even by accident
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks to COPPA, a lot of kids start out over 13 already because they lie about their age to skip parental consent. So either they lie about their age being 18 instead of 13 or there is some privacy intrusive thing forced on everyone. Neither is a good option.
I know Apple wants everyone to own separate devices by not allowing multiple users but shared devices are still a thing. And honestly most families don't set up separate user accounts even on desktops and laptops that support it. So you get into th
Re: (Score:2)
I was able to buy liquor underage when I was, well...underage.
But it wasn't easy.....
Make it difficult enough on social media to be a PITA for kids to get on, AND...if the number of kids on SM are limited, that means it is actually less of an attraction to other kids to try to get on.
No one wants to be where no one is, you know?
Re: (Score:2)
If it was so hard, then these kids would just have under-13 accounts. But even their parents are sometimes helping them set up over-13 accounts. Making the requirement 18 instead of 13 or parental consent won't change that. Unless you propose sweeping privacy violating verification methods being required.
Re: (Score:2)
Then that is on there parents. Just like if you buy your 15 year old a case of beer, yes you can do that.
However most 15 year olds without parental assistance have at least some difficulty obtaining a beer or a pack of smokes! Why because society recognized these things can be not just harmful but especially so to minors who are both physically developing and lack the maturity in a lot of cases to quantify the risks and navigate the consequences.
The internet be it social media and porn is entirely different
Re: (Score:2)
"If it saves just one kid!"
Re:Obvious solution... (Score:4, Insightful)
The solution is so painfully obvious and likely would have been quickly undertaken a decade or so ago...
Nationally make social media adult only....over 18yrs or no social media.
Define "social media".
I'll wait.
Re: (Score:2)
Would you support extending that idea to all forms of ad-supported media, e.g. TV and newspapers? Those businesses have the same perverse incentives as Facebook. People want to buy your kid's eyeballs (as well as your own), and if they can't get 'em from one seller, they'll find another.
Corelation isn't causation (Score:2)
The reported evidence gives no indication as to which way the arrow of causation points, or even whether both depression and time on-line are caused by some other factor (which I think probable). E.g. having one's mobility restricted, especially compared to others in ones social group, could well lead to both increased depression and more time on-line. And being moved from place to place to follow one's parents job could do same. And that's just the first two off the top of my head.
I'd be all in favor of
Re: (Score:2)
What's the harm in limiting access to social media and the internet in general to children? What is an 11yo going to lose out on?
Re:Corelation isn't causation (Score:5, Insightful)
What's the harm in limiting access to social media and the internet in general to children? What is an 11yo going to lose out on?
well, it would require the end of anonymous internet access.
Some people do think that would be good.
Re: (Score:2)
Not learning how to use a search engine before 11? In this era? Learning out to fact check and find information is a crucial life skill that needs to be learned further from adulthood.
And do you mean just the web or all TCP/IP traffic coming from outside the house? There's quite a lot of good PBS Kids content, limited Youtube access (self curated playlists, though - Youtube Kids is crazy)? It's like telling a kid in the 80s that they can't have Nintendo until they're an adult. It's a thing that's techn
Re: (Score:2)
They? I was talking about your own words:
What's the harm in limiting access to ... the internet in general to children?
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah children can’t be depressed. Not like their schools have monthly active shooter drills or having to teach battlefield tourniquet techniques. Or corporations posting record profits while maintaining the same supplier costs. Or housing and rent prices tripling in a decade. Can’t imagine why children might have a negative outlook.
So what? (Score:2)
Such a statement is completely irrelevant in the USA since we don't work by the precautionary principle. Anything not forbidden is permitted. You don't need permission to sell a product containing a chemical generally believed (or even known!) to be harmful until it's banned, for example.
I wish we did work that way, because I'd like to see something done about these toxic fragrances, to say nothing of perfumes/colognes which contain musk as well. Let's see, we'll mix a known carcinogen with a compound that
We lost this fight in the 80s (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Not to mention repealing the Fairness Doctrine.
Surgeon general (Score:3)
I always find that title amusing. What does studying kids and social media have to do with surgery?
Re: (Score:2)
I always find that title amusing. What does studying kids and social media have to do with surgery?
And the Surgeon General wears a USPHS Navy style uniform, for historical reasons surrounding the USPHS' antecedent.
Re: (Score:2)
And today I learned that NOAA even has Navy style uniforms as it's another uniformed service branch. Though they are one of the two branches that don't have a Surgeon General.
Re: (Score:2)
What do kids have to do with a military medical advisor? It's a historical title. The person in that role didn't advise on public health until the late 19th century. I imagine because we still wanted to have one but we weren't at war so much. They kept the title despite the person now definitely being a civilian and technically having an honorary military of Vice Admiral rather than General.
The main "surgeon general" title was originally applied to the chief surgeon of the Marine Hospital Service. The
Re: (Score:2)
I was not talking about the military history. It just doesn't need to be a surgeon. A medical doctor specializing in public health would seem a better fit than anyone who studied surgery.
Re: (Score:2)
The title comes from military history. They are often neither a General nor a Surgeon. They are appointed that title. Everyone appointed to that title is a specialist in public health because the only people eligible to be appointed are members of the US Public Health Service already.
Re: (Score:2)
Correction - if they aren't a member they can still be appointed, provided that they have similar public health experience.
Re: (Score:2)
Well exactly, the title is just confusing.
Re: (Score:2)
It's just a face for the office. They don't make any decisions.
The world is not "safe for kids" (Score:2)
You eventually have to let them out anyways and if they are not prepared at that time then you fucked them over as a parent.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
And where did you gain these absolute truths? Straight from your behind?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That is far too small of a sample to know anything general. I know some people derive a lot of arrogance from being a parent, but in the end you would actually need 20 kids upwards to even begin to observe general effects.
Re: (Score:2)
You eventually have to let them out anyways and if they are not prepared at that time then you fucked them over as a parent.
Well - you are not wrong.
Social media and it's abuse is a symptom of a problem, not any problem in itself.
Are a lot of our children mentally messed up? Fuggenhellyes!
We don't let them grow up. We don't teach them how to deal with bullies. And at the same time they are taught that they are the center of the universe.
Then they get on social media, and have no idea of how to interact with the world other than in bland and non-toxic environments, that are 100 percent supervised by adults.
Safety cult
Re: (Score:2)
We don't let them grow up. We don't teach them how to deal with bullies. And at the same time they are taught that they are the center of the universe.
The truth is, the Internet as a whole messed the parents up. The fact that news travels around the world so fast and you can hear about things that happen far away while they're happening makes it seem like the world is a dangerous place. If you grew up well before that time, you might even think the world is getting FAR MORE dangerous than it used to be. The reality is that you're just getting more information about what was already happening.
The result of that is too much for some people and their enti
so can we apply that logic (Score:2)
Social media is designed to abuse the 1A (Score:2)
Social media for teens is full of clout chasing like this [reddit.com] (TL;DR older brother posted an utterly humiliating video of his younger sister for the lulz). 1A case law largely takes away the ability of the government to bring the hammer down on "speech" like this and make teens and adults very afraid of highly abusive behavior that falls nominally under "speech."
Personally, I think the 1A case law should be scaled back in such cases to recognize that such behavior has no meaningful speech, artistic value or pub
Re: (Score:2)
The speech kids are putting out there isn't really any more harmful than what previous generations were exposed to in person. Algorithmic curation and amplification is the actual problem here. And it's not really even speech. Too much focus is given on the content and not what directs it at eyeballs for engagement-dollars regardless of the consequences.
How many of them died? (Score:2)
Bicycle accidents: According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), an average of about 100 children (aged 0-19) die each year from bicycle-related injuries in the United States.
Gun incidents: The CDC reports that, on average, around 400 children (aged 0-17) die each year from firearm-related injuries in the United States. This includes both intentional and unintentional incidents.
Pedestrian accidents: According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), an average of a
Re: (Score:2)
Social media related suicides = suicides where the suicidee had used social media? Well, ok, then 99% of suicides.
Or, where is the real evidence, emphasis on real, that social media actually significantly contributed to a suicide? Such evidence would be extremely difficult to produce, so difficult that any such evidence is really just an opinion. Suicidees have more problems than just what happened on social media.
Re: (Score:2)
More time online = poorer mental health? (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Is this really about social media? (Score:2)
It looks like the worst objections are with the ad industry, rather than social media itself. That kind of explains why complaints about social media weren't very common until about 20 years ago, when ad companies started getting i
Evidence (Score:2)
Is there enough evidence that I should believe this guy about anything? He was clearly an identity hire, putting into question whether he has real chops on anything except grifting.
Re: (Score:2)
Surgeon General should stick to Surgery, Generally (Score:2)
which also means (Score:2)
There is not enough evidence to say that social media is harmful to kids.