this post was submitted on 30 Nov 2024

412 points (97.7% liked)

World News

39364 readers

2140 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
- Post news articles only
- Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
- Title must match the article headline
- Not United States Internal News
- Recent (Past 30 Days)
- Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF 10/19
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world

Recommendations

How to spot Misinformation and Propaganda

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

Consider including the article’s mediabiasfactcheck.com/ link

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

quinten@lemmy.world

NewsAutoMod@lemmy.world

jordanlund@lemmy.world

Tenthrow@lemmy.world

little_cow@lemmy.world

lemmyAtom@lemmy.world

FlyingSquid@lemmy.world

412

Most in Germany want Australia-style social media ban: poll (www.dw.com)

submitted 3 weeks ago by MicroWave@lemmy.world to c/world@lemmy.world

99 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Summary

A YouGov poll revealed that 77% of Germans support banning social media for those under 16, similar to a new Australian law.

The survey found that 82% believe social media harms young people, citing harmful content and addiction.

In Australia, the law fines platforms up to AUD 49.5 million (€30.5M) for allowing under-16s to create accounts, with enforcement trials set before implementation next year. Critics

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] troed@fedia.io 21 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

Lots of people believe things not supported by science.

News at 11.

[–] Not_mikey@slrpnk.net 25 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

I mean science does show this generation has very high incidence of anxiety, depression, suicide etc. Not saying social media is all of it, but it's probably a very big cause.

[–] troed@fedia.io -1 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

"Probably"

This is your definition of scientific?

Thanks for proving my point.

great account to follow regarding the science on the subject: https://ohai.social/@Garwboy/113554246823274751

[–] MacAnus@sh.itjust.works 9 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Let's remember the ban in Australia concerns platforms such as Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat, Reddit and X. Exemptions will apply to services such as YouTube, messenger kids, whatsapp, kids helpline and google classroom.

The account you provided starts by stating that "the most rigorous analysis" found little/no significant evidence , but fails to link to them. He immediately lumps together smartphone and social media, then goes on justifying the importance of both with arguments that clearly concern almost exclusively smartphones.

This ban is about social media, not smartphones altogether.

Garwboy's arguments:

they let kids stay connected with friends, foster a community, allow coordination of activities: he's talking about smartphones.
they allow access to school work, references, important resources: again, smartphones/the internet
they allow access to support, help and guidance from experienced and informed individuals and groups: this point I'll give to him; as for years, Reddit has served that very purpose for me. Who knows what that site has become though.
he compares them to roads (roads kill children every year, but they save many lives, make the world go round,...): again this whole comparison is only valid for smartphones.
they are a refuge for children who experience abuse at home: this is probably true, but it is not an argument about how social media helps in these situations. I could say the same about drugs .

Which brings us to my point of view: social media are, for many, a drug. A bit of it can be good, fun and even sometimes make your like better, but we have to acknowledge the negative side, which in my opinion can have devastating effects in a person's mental, especially when the mental is still in its forming stage.

[–] troed@fedia.io -5 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

but we have to acknowledge the negative side, which in my opinion [...]

I don't do opinions. Burnett (a neuroscientist) has linked many sources - maybe you just need to read a bit more.

Additionally, your claims about what's "smartphones" and what's "social media" are strange - my kids use Snapchat to communicate. Do you think they use SMS?? How old are your kids?

[–] MacAnus@sh.itjust.works 5 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (1 children)

Look it's my opinion from personal experience, just disregard it if it bothers you.

I read the whole series of posts but didn't see them, I guess I needed to search some more - my bad.

I'm not saying social media doesn't let you do all those things, I'm saying you don't need it to do them.

I don't have kids and never used Snapchat, but what does Snapchat provide that helps them communicate better than let's say WhatsApp?

Edit: I went to dig on Burnett's page for the links you tell me about. All I found was a radio interview of a doctor on radio Boston, an article from the Sunday times about Burnett's book and an article on Wales online, also about the book.

Could you link me to the relevant articles I must have missed?

Edit 2: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7364393/ Found this article that combines different studies made on the subject. Around halfway through the page you will find the results of some of these studies and you will see the answer isn't clear.

[+] troed@fedia.io -6 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

I don't have kids

Yeah I think you should abstain from having opinions on what their generation is doing then. In the whole of human history no older generation has ever been correct regarding what the upcoming generation should or shouldn't do.

The study you link says the exact same thing as Burnett does. It doesn't support "social media is bad for kids".

edit:

In all, the available meta-analytic evidence suggests that SNS use is weakly associated with higher levels of ill-being [14,17, 18, 19, 20] but also with higher levels of well-being [17,19], a result that suggests that ill-being is not simply the flip-side of well-being and vice versa, and that both outcomes should be investigated in their own right [11,39]. Finally, all meta-analyses reported considerable variability in the reported associations. For example, in the meta-analysis by Ivie et al. [14], the reported associations of SMU with depressive symptoms ranged from r = −.10 to r = +.33.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2352250X21001500

[–] Not_mikey@slrpnk.net 4 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

In the whole of human history no older generation has ever been correct regarding what the upcoming generation should or should not do

I may not be a scientist but I know enough about history that any statement that says "in the whole of human history..." and doesn't finish with death or taxes is bullshit.

Was the older generation wrong when they told there kids not to do crack when it started becoming popular in the 80s? granted I'm pretty against the war on drugs but even if we do fully legalize we should still keep it away from kids because:

It can be addictive and addiction and developing brains aren't a good combination.
It is a major decision with positives and negatives that a child can't fully understand

Both of those are true , albeit to a far lesser extent, for social media.

[–] technocrit@lemmy.dbzer0.com -1 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

Yeah the level of scientific illiteracy in favor of self-righteous yammering was actually surprising for me to find on Lemmy. Who all upvoted that "probably" comment? smh.

[–] leisesprecher 4 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

And even worse: bad polling amplifies the interpretation the pollsters want to see.

In this case, there's no link to or mention of the actual question. Just the in favor/not in favor distribution.

Did they ask "the government should implement laws to ban children" or did it say "rules to prevent children from signing up"?

Did they mention the age limit? Asking any children and teenagers might lead to very different results.

And so on. If you can't find the exact question, polls like this are useless.

[–] thallamabond@lemmy.world 4 points 3 weeks ago

Important thing about these laws is that they are for everybody. I would find it interesting if they asked, "Would you be willing to show your ID to go online?". "Would you be okay with the government requiring you to show your ID to go on reddit?"