I think this is what bothers me the most.
These are vibe laws.
I get that people support them, but people are fucking stupid and fall for so much media propaganda and lies.
A community to post scientific articles, news, and civil discussion.
dart board;; science bs
rule #1: be kind
I think this is what bothers me the most.
These are vibe laws.
I get that people support them, but people are fucking stupid and fall for so much media propaganda and lies.
Yeah, they're just reactionary. I get the instinct, social media is deeply intertwined with so many issues and when I was a teenager you had stuff like pro-ana that was hurting teens. But reactionary laws, can only ever achieve their stated goals by chance. And the internet was vitally good for me as a teen as well.
Unfettered access to the internet lead to me learning programming, web design. math, video game development, and that helped me learn a ton of other skills and land my career.
Not to mention all my homework with Wikipedia and finding high quality sources from the references.
It’s fucking useful.
Ban for-profit social media for everyone. Why should just the kids benefit?
It's bad for EVERYONE, no one in their right mind should use it, but it shouldn't really be banned because the government doesn't want to put limits on tech companies, that's so fucking backwards. But then, what else is new.
the government doesn't want to put limits on tech companies, that's so fucking backwards.
/s ?
Not at all, we majorly dropped the ball by making zero legislation on social media companies, how they can use their algorithms, respecting people's choices and privacy, and so on and quite frankly I think we have Trump to show for it. He's the perfect candidate for abusing social media and it worked perfectly for him. He's the social media candidate, this is what tech gave us.
It's not about 'protecting kids'. They couldn't care less about wellbeing of kids. If they did, they wouldn't cut resources and benefits for them. It's about control. They know kids get their news and views from social media and non mainstream news for obvious reasons. It's about controlling the narrative. Also, it's a parents job to pay attention what their kids view online and activate some parent controls
Excellent writeup that more people should read
Off-topic comment. I read this article, but read it in a couple different sessions due to interruptions, and had apparently clicked on to other pages. I wanted to comment about how US culture is unreasonably hard on young people (in general), and for all the US talk of freedom, is often restrictive, especially so for minors. Unfortunately, finding this article page was rather difficult. A browser addon called "What we say" had 4 links from the article back to Lemmy discussion, but they were mostly to a federated instance called "Division by zero". So I tried the button labeled "Find in my home instance", but it refused to work, which could be due to my own browser's configuration (it has worked on other articles and instances). So I came back to lemmy.world, and had to scroll manually through several pages, using browser search to find the article. It'd be nice if there was a more direct method of finding a Lemmy discussion from a non-Lemmy webpage.
Mild surprise at the suggestion that "evidence" or "science" has anything to do with it.
Fuck it. Send it.
Screentime ITSELF in some studies has been proven to have both cognitive & mental-health consequences.
Here, however, is some rather solid research, which doesn't support banning all online-socialization-for-youngsters, but DOES back the 2h-or-less/day limit:
( yes, I asked an LLM for this, because it actually helps.
ANY hallucinated-source, CALL IT OUT!!
but ignoring/denying actual-help is ludditeism, not effectiveness.
Automation does improve effectiveness, as aviation proved, a thousandfold, through commercial-aviation's safety-record )
The consensus among global health organizations typically centers on a 2-hour daily limit for recreational screen time for school-aged children, while recent large-scale research has highlighted significant risks—sometimes described as a "cliff" in academic and cognitive performance—when usage exceeds 5 hours.
The 2-hour guideline is the gold standard for "sedentary recreational" screen time (excluding schoolwork) and is supported by several major health authorities:
The "2-sigma" (standard deviation) deterioration you mentioned is often linked to research by social psychologist Jonathan Haidt and Jean Twenge. Their work tracks a "dose-response" relationship where mental health and cognitive outcomes drop significantly once daily usage crosses the 4-to-5-hour mark.
Aldhilan, D. (2026). Digital tools and screen time management in early childhood education: parents' and educators' perspectives. Frontiers in Education. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/education/articles/10.3389/feduc.2026.1742813/full Cited by: 1
Cowan, J. (2018). Help Families Find a Screen Time Balance. The ASHA Leader. https://leader.pubs.asha.org/2018/02/26/help-families-find-a-screen-time-balance/ Cited by: 1
Hulick, K. (n.d.). Healthy screen time is one challenge of distance learning. Science News Explores. https://www.snexplores.org/article/healthy-screen-time-is-one-challenge-of-distance-learning Cited by: 6
Krumsvik, R. J. (2023). Screenagers, social media, screen time, and mental (ill) health. Scandinavian University Press. https://www.scup.com/doi/10.18261/njdl.18.2.1 Cited by: 9
Priftis, N., & Panagiotakos, D. (2023). Screen Time and Its Health Consequences in Children and Adolescents. Children, 10(10), 1665. https://doi.org/10.3390/children10101665 Cited by: 173
Shalash, R. J. (2024). Night Screen Time is Associated with Cognitive Function in Healthy Young Adults: A Cross-Sectional Study. Journal of Multidisciplinary Healthcare. https://doi.org/10.2147/JMDH.S459846 Cited by: 27
< that was the end of the LLM-provided stuff >
I'd do multiple things, that the governments absolutely are not doing:
I'd require that there be not-for-profit platforms for people who don't want to be Meta's carrion, & all kids.
I'd require that the platforms for kids be mental-age-segregated, to some extent, but overlapping ( mentally-7 would mean mentally-5-9, mentally 9 would mean mentally 7-11, etc. something like that, so that adjacent-age friends would be in, but it'd still be peer-group )
I'd require that there be actual brain-scanned-to-weed-out-pedophiles chaperones for those platforms' kids-dimensions, to keep things safe & positive
I'd require that there be a 2h-hard-limit ( except for emergencies, like death-in-the-family, hospitalization, whatever ), & a 90-min recommended-limit.
I'd differentiate between that & a different dimension, where one was being trained/mentored by one's own agent, in whatever subjects one was interested in learning ( positive ones, not sadisms or machiavellianisms )
etc.
It's a systems-question, but it's being dealt-with as an ideological-question, & that's just obliterating opportunity, which is called "Solving The WRONG Problem(tm)".
_ /\ _
ANY hallucinated-source, CALL IT OUT!!
Vibe coders before adding their "helpful" commit for the developer to look at.
Nah I'm kidding, looks good so far haha.