4 ms·

I agree about being outsiders. Social media (if this is even a well-defined term) is just how people communicate these days. No need for hysteria and banning (I

by gms 1mo ago

I agree about being outsiders. Social media (if this is even a well-defined term) is just how people communicate these days. No need for hysteria and banning (I was on Slashdot in the 90s. Was that not social media?). I think it’s as ignorant to want to ban kids from social media today as it was ignorant to want to ban my generation from video games 30 years ago. The kids at the time thought the adults were clueless people who did not understand technology. Kids today correctly think the same way about adults who are hysterical about social media. Each parent can decide the time and age boundaries for their kids. But to think a 14 year old is going to accept being excluded from communication with their friends is just laughable.

TonyStr 1mo ago
All popular social media platforms today (snapchat, instagram, facebook) have endless streams of unfiltered short-form media which is designed to addict. I think few people are actually criticizing online communication for kids (though there are concerns about what communities and people they may interact with). The major problem is addicting media which promotes asocial behavior and sucks away the joy and creativity of going through life.
- gms 1mo ago
  This is a manufactured impression by people who don’t understand these systems and the reality around them. Yes I would have played video games all day as a kid but I had a functional family and friends to engage with. It’s true that if you don’t have functional parents then perhaps all bets are off. And anyway iPhones provide controls for parents to limit screen time.
intended 1mo ago
A parallel between attitudes about new technologies, does not work when the parallel between the two technologies itself is broken. I too was on slashdot, back in the early days of 5 digit/6 digit IDs. I’ve since worked in trust and safety, and contributed to research on it, and have played video games enough that it’s the “sport” I prefer. The evidence and research shows that social media is entirely different than the benign games we grew up with. Zelda, Mario, Golden Eye, Ultima - are not the same as the behavioral skinner boxes that showed up with the advent of FarmVille. And thats just games - the Skinner box and addictive design philosophy has resulted in direct quotes from people at meta warning their executives that this is going to make life worse for children and teens. The comparison isn’t between panic about video games. The comparison is about panic about giving kids cigarettes and vapes.
- gms 1mo ago
  I think you should talk to some real life teenagers to see how hysterical this impression is.
  - intended 1mo ago
    Oh, thats an interesting response. Perhaps something like this? https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2025/04/22/teens-social-media-and-mental-health/ https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2025/04/22/teens-social... > Still, teens are growing more wary of social media for their peers. Roughly half of teens (48%) say these sites have a mostly negative effect on people their age, up from 32% in 2022. But fewer (14%) think they negatively affect them personally. What next? Maybe we should wait for the creators of social media tools to be caught on record saying that they did the tests and know it’s harmful? However I suspect that nothing I say will shift your position.
    - gms 1mo ago
      Yes, because revealed preferences are different. Meta's properties (for example) have billions of users for a reason (me included). Some people are prone to feeling bad irrespective of social media. One can also espouse the same view about video games (I don't play them anymore for this reason, but certainly did as a child/teenager).
mrguyorama 1mo ago
How many Psychologists did Slashdot hire with the explicit task of making slashdot more addictive? Meta has entire teams. It's like believing that cigarettes are fine and shouldn't be specially regulated because 50 years ago everyone occasionally smoked a pipe and it wasn't that big a deal, completely ignoring how the two are incomparable, entirely because the industry made it more addictive to be more profitable

by gms 1mo ago

TonyStr 1mo ago

All popular social media platforms today (snapchat, instagram, facebook) have endless streams of unfiltered short-form media which is designed to addict. I think few people are actually criticizing online communication for kids (though there are concerns about what communities and people they may interact with). The major problem is addicting media which promotes asocial behavior and sucks away the joy and creativity of going through life.

gms 1mo ago
This is a manufactured impression by people who don’t understand these systems and the reality around them. Yes I would have played video games all day as a kid but I had a functional family and friends to engage with. It’s true that if you don’t have functional parents then perhaps all bets are off. And anyway iPhones provide controls for parents to limit screen time.

intended 1mo ago

A parallel between attitudes about new technologies, does not work when the parallel between the two technologies itself is broken. I too was on slashdot, back in the early days of 5 digit/6 digit IDs. I’ve since worked in trust and safety, and contributed to research on it, and have played video games enough that it’s the “sport” I prefer. The evidence and research shows that social media is entirely different than the benign games we grew up with. Zelda, Mario, Golden Eye, Ultima - are not the same as the behavioral skinner boxes that showed up with the advent of FarmVille. And thats just games - the Skinner box and addictive design philosophy has resulted in direct quotes from people at meta warning their executives that this is going to make life worse for children and teens. The comparison isn’t between panic about video games. The comparison is about panic about giving kids cigarettes and vapes.

gms 1mo ago
I think you should talk to some real life teenagers to see how hysterical this impression is.
- intended 1mo ago
  Oh, thats an interesting response. Perhaps something like this? https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2025/04/22/teens-social-media-and-mental-health/ https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2025/04/22/teens-social... > Still, teens are growing more wary of social media for their peers. Roughly half of teens (48%) say these sites have a mostly negative effect on people their age, up from 32% in 2022. But fewer (14%) think they negatively affect them personally. What next? Maybe we should wait for the creators of social media tools to be caught on record saying that they did the tests and know it’s harmful? However I suspect that nothing I say will shift your position.
  - gms 1mo ago
    Yes, because revealed preferences are different. Meta's properties (for example) have billions of users for a reason (me included). Some people are prone to feeling bad irrespective of social media. One can also espouse the same view about video games (I don't play them anymore for this reason, but certainly did as a child/teenager).

mrguyorama 1mo ago

How many Psychologists did Slashdot hire with the explicit task of making slashdot more addictive? Meta has entire teams. It's like believing that cigarettes are fine and shouldn't be specially regulated because 50 years ago everyone occasionally smoked a pipe and it wasn't that big a deal, completely ignoring how the two are incomparable, entirely because the industry made it more addictive to be more profitable