There is reliable evidence social media harms young people

[C C]

Surprising that a government would actually do something about it. Always considered research and debate pointless because the smartphone industry, social platforms, and the addicted public would rebel against such even if the evidence did warrant it. That may still result.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

There is reliable evidence social media harms young people – debates about it are a misdirection
https://theconversation.com/there-is-rel...ion-243482

EXCERPTS: The Australian government is developing legislation that will ban children under 16 from social media. There has been a huge public debate about whether there is sufficient direct evidence of harm to introduce this regulation.

The players in this debate include academics, mental health organisations, advocacy groups and digital education providers. Few step back to look at the entire research landscape.

Social media has become integral to everyday life. Not many teens want to be extensively researched, so studies are pragmatic, require consent and findings are limited. As a result, we tend to hear that the effects are small or even inconclusive.

For the public it’s crucial to understand all research studies have limitations, and must be interpreted within the context in which the data was collected. To understand any report, we must scrutinise the details.

In recent years, anxiety has been on the rise among children and young people. Understanding why young people are anxious, depressed or overly focused on themselves is no easy task.

When it comes to the potential negative impact of social media, several mechanisms are at play. To unpack them, data is needed from many angles: examining mood while online, examining mental health over several years, school relationships, even brain scans, to name just a few.

[...] With so many sources of error, it’s no wonder there is vigorous debate among researchers over the extent of social media harm. Limitations are par for the course. Worse, researchers are often not given full access to data from social media companies. That’s why we need to pay more attention to big tech whistleblowers who have inside access.

Meanwhile, these companies do have access to the data. They use it to exploit human nature.

Focusing on debates between researchers is a misdirection and makes us complacent. There is enough evidence to demonstrate excessive social media use can be harmful to young people.... (MORE - more details)

[Syne]

We really just need adults to be adults, taking responsibility for their own choices and actually parenting children.
Requiring others to protect your children from things you allow them to be exposed to is nanny-state nonsense.

[Magical Realist]

Requiring others to protect your children from things you allow them to be exposed to is nanny-state nonsense.

OTOH, to quote Hillary, "it takes a village". Ex: the banning of cellphone use during school hours. Best idea I've heard in a long time.

[Syne]

"It takes a village" is leftist-speak for "your children belong to the state."

Cellphones in school are the least of the problems with our public school system. Just look at how well schools were doing before there was a federal Department of Education even compared with before cellphones were a thing.

[C C]

A new theory about how social media interactions affect people’s brains
https://cosmosmagazine.com/people/new-th...eractions/

EXCERPT: . . . In response to this pressing need for greater insight into social media, researchers have proposed a novel Disembodied Disconnect Hypothesis.

Introduced in a recent paper by different European and American researchers coordinated by the Humane Technology Lab, at the Catholic University of Sacred Heart, this framework examines how digital platforms reshape social behaviours without necessarily altering cognitive structures.

The hypothesis posits that while digital platforms create new opportunities for interaction, they fundamentally differ from traditional, in-person social engagement. Researchers say this can have major psychological and social consequences.
The role of in-person interaction

Historically, communities have been built through face-to-face interactions in shared physical spaces.

These interactions engage what researchers term “we-mode” processes, including behavioural synchrony (coordinated movements and expressions), shared attention (joint focus on objects or events), interbrain coupling (synchronised neural activity across individuals), and emotional attunement (shared emotional states).

These embodied neurobiological mechanisms are not merely byproducts of social interaction but are fundamental to interpersonal bonding, the formation of collective identities, and the equitable distribution of social capital across diverse groups.

For instance, studies have shown that behavioural synchrony in communal rituals can increase prosocial behaviour and in-group cohesion, while interbrain coupling during face-to-face dialogue correlates with mutual understanding and empathy.

By contrast, digital interactions eliminate many of these physical dynamics. While this grants individuals unprecedented freedom to choose their activities and social groups, it also reduces engagement with “we-mode” processes.

Digital communities often bring together like-minded individuals, which can foster polarisation and deepen social inequalities.

This digital shift creates what the researchers term the “disembodied disconnect”, dividing those who effectively use digital platforms to expand their networks and resources from those who struggle. Individuals with strong social skills often thrive in digital environments, expanding their networks and accessing diverse resources.

In contrast, those grappling with loneliness or relationship difficulties may experience adverse effects such as rumination, unfavourable social comparisons, and weakened offline social ties. The study paints a complex picture of social media’s impact... (MORE - missing details)

[Magical Realist]

"It takes a village" is leftist-speak for "your children belong to the state."

Cellphones in school are the least of the problems with our public school system. Just look at how well schools were doing before there was a federal Department of Education even compared with before cellphones were a thing.

The Dept of Education has nothing to do with these cellphone bans. They are being enacted by the States at the state level (just like conservatives keep demanding) in response to reports from the Surgeon General and UNESCO.

  "Heading into the 2024-2025 school year, a growing number of states are implementing or considering state-wide bans on cellphones in schools. Many leaders in education and policymakers suggest cellphone bans will help mitigate youth mental health concerns and distractions during academic instruction. The resurgence of cellphone bans follows two advisories from the U.S. Surgeon General on the youth mental health crisis and the harmful impacts of social media use and recommendations from UNESCO to limit cellphone use in schools across the world. Unlike many recent political issues, school cellphone ban policies have largely received bipartisan support, and the Biden-Harris administration continues to promote online safety for youth. At the same time, research on the effectiveness of cellphone bans is limited, and although multiple states are adopting these bans, challenges remain with enforcement, accommodating exceptions, and equity."--- https://www.kff.org/mental-health/issue-...al-health/

[Syne]

For god's sake, please learn to read.
No one said the DOE had anything to do with cellphone bans.