USCE 2023: Please let them shove a camera up your butt

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > USCE 2023: Please let them shove a camera up your butt

«‹›797 »

Zamujasa: Oct 27, 2010; Bread Liar

When I was growing up my depression was largely because of our hosed up and failing schools (which made school itself a nightmare), our hosed up and failing-for-the-common-man economy, and most important of all, the utter trashing and removal of pretty much anything for kids or teenagers to do that didn't involve spending more money.

Parks, waterparks, arcades, bowling alleys, etc. were eventually closed and removed and replaced with either nothing or casinos / bars. Add on top of that that the modern American home has gone from a full-time stay-at-home-parent to increasingly overworked and absentee parents, and, well.

Social media / smartphone use isn't the sole driver; nothing is. Everything is hosed up and getting worse. Social media/smartphones are really good at turning kids into products, though, and ensuring that they're basically glued to an emotional manipulation device seven days a week.

Simply banning kids from social media isn't going to fix much. It's one of many causes of the situation we're in, but far from the only one, and real solutions need to go after the other problems as well. The fact that this happens to be lining up with a general crackdown on trans/queer youth is also really concerning for hopefully obvious reasons.

# ? May 22, 2023 18:41

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 20, 2024 19:23

I AM GRANDO: Aug 20, 2006

Stabbey_the_Clown posted:

I think that notion is complete horseshit. They're only using smartphones and social media as a scapegoat so they don't have to look in the loving mirror. Depression is on the rise because previous generations have systematically stripped the wealth of society and transferred it upwards, stripped the planet's resources to produce more wealth for the super-rich, and are leaving the youth a planet with an unsolvable climate crisis which will cripple or radically alter civilization in negative ways.

Twenge�s an odd bird for sure. In her academic work, she uses longitudinal surveys to note that Americans are becoming more individualistic and more suspicious of institutions and communitarian ways of living/organizing. She has written a lot about a linear change in people�s attitudes where every 30 years they�re less likely to say they�d be ok with being drafted (an extreme example) or with changing their behavior for the good of others (a minor example), and more likely to say that everyone should be able to do whatever they want and that the government, universities, employers, insurance companies are not to be trusted. She noted that alienation and anomie attend this linear, predictable trend.

Yet she�s gone into business for herself as a consultant offering an argument about how today�s teenagers and young adults have been radically affected by social media. In that podcast, she uses opinion surveys to systematically exclude material factors like collapsing capitalism, environmental collapse, and school shootings by saying, for example, that teens in 2020 were less likely to say that recycling and conservation were very important to them than teens in 1999. And she says concern about capitalism can�t be a factor because the gdp grew a lot between 2011 and 2020. She�s very narrowly focused on social media and on a theory of history that credits technological change with responsibility for cultural shifts, which is not a very falsifiable claim.

So yeah, her argument is tendentious. I think it�s pretty likely that people are affected by access to information and to a wider range of arguments than teens in the 1990s would have been able to encounter, but having access to proof that their systems are failing doesn�t mean that the proof is the problem. I felt very safe as a preteen in the 1990s, but obviously all the trends that have brought us to our present failures were in full operation then.

Weirdly, she�s a kind of optimist or utopian, in that she thinks everything will be fine in the long run if social media is taken away from people under 15. She argues in that podcast that teens were in a much worse situation in the 1960s because they could have been drafted to fight in Vietnam and because the gdp was lower.

# ? May 22, 2023 18:45

Leon Trotsky 2012: Aug 27, 2009; YOU CAN TRUST ME!*

_{*Israeli Government-affiliated poster}

Willa Rogers posted:

Depression is going up among a lot of demographics, particularly disenfranchised groups, and is now at record highs, according to Gallup:

While social media might have some bearing on younger people's rates of depression, I think the rise among other demographic shows that a lot of other factors are contributing as well, particularly those related to the pandemic.

It was definitely happening before the pandemic. The biggest spike seems to have started around 2012 and it has accelerated.

Here's an article from 2019 about a study that measured how dramatic the increase was from 2015 through 2017. The study concluded it was sleeplessness and social media that were the biggest drivers.

Young wealthier white women were far and away the largest group of depressed/suicidal individuals.

quote:

DIGITAL MEDIA AND SLEEPLESSNESS TO BLAME FOR THE RISE OF DEPRESSED ADOLESCENTS

There's "a generational shift in mood disorders instead of an overall increase across all ages."

The United States is currently witnessing a generational shift in mood disorders, with more teenagers and young adults experiencing serious psychological distress than in previous decades. In a study published Wednesday in the Journal of Abnormal Psychology, scientists argue that a lack of sleep, entwined with the rise of digital media, may be to blame.

Drawing from the National Survey on Drug Use and Health, the researchers behind the new study analyzed responses from more than 200,000 adolescents aged 12 to 17 between 2005 and 2017. They also examined data provided by almost 400,000 adults aged 18 and over whose responses were collected from 2008 to 2017. While there was not a significant increase in the percentage of older adults who experienced depression or psychological distress in the mid to late 2000s, the same was not true for adolescents and young adults.

The rate of young adults with suicidal thoughts increased by 47 percent from 2008 to 2017, and the rate of young adults experiencing serious psychological distress increased by 71 percent from 2008 to 2017.

The rate of adolescents reporting symptoms of major depression sometime in the last 12 months increased by 52 percent from 2005 to 2017. Meanwhile, there was a 63 percent rise in the same reporting for young adults between the ages of 18 and 25 from 2009 to 2017.

�More U.S. adolescents and young adults in the late 2010s, versus the mid-200s, experienced serious psychological distress, major depression or suicidal thoughts, and more attempted suicide,� lead author and San Diego State psychology professor Jean Twenge, Ph.D., announced Wednesday. �These trends are weak or non-existent among adults 26 years and over, suggesting a generational shift in mood disorders instead of an overall increase across all ages.�

While mood disorder indicators increased among both young men and women, the increases were largest among women. They also found that while young people across most racial and ethnic groups reported depression, the largest increase in reporting mood disorders was done by white Americans and Americans with the highest total family income. The team writes, �this suggests the largest increases in mood disorder outcomes occurred among higher socioeconomic status white women and girls.�

The team cannot say definitively what is driving these changes because survey respondents were not asked to explain why they might be feeling the way they do. However, scientists can make an educated hypothesis: Because the increase in mental health issues was sharpest after 2011 � a period of economic expansion and falling unemployment � Twenge believes the rise is likely linked to cultural changes rather than economic woes or genetics.

Increased use of electronic communication and digital media over the past decade, the team writes, �may have changed modes of social interaction enough to affect mood disorders and suicide-related outcomes.� Previous studies have shown that people who spend more time on social media and less IRL time with others are more likely to be depressed. Cyberbullying is also linked to depression, self-harm, and suicidal thoughts.

�The stronger cohort effect may have occurred because the trend toward digital media had a different impact on individuals depending on their age and developmental stage,� they write. �For example, the time adolescents spent with their friends face-to-face declined between 2009 and 2017, whereas shifts in the frequency of face-to-face social interaction among adults appear to be less pronounced.�

U.S. adolescents are also sleeping less: A recent review of studies found that, since 2000, insomnia became prevalent among 18.5 percent of university students. Its prevalence in the general population, meanwhile, sits closer to 7.4 percent. And the neural link between depression and a lack of sleep is well established.

�Young people can�t change their genetics or the economic situation of the country, but they can choose how they spend their leisure time,� Twenge advises. She recommends that adolescents prioritize their sleep and keep their phones and tablets out of the bedroom. Overall, the professor says, �make sure digital media use doesn�t interfere with activities more beneficial to mental health, such as face-to-face social interaction, exercise, and sleep.�

https://www.inverse.com/article/54045-mood-disorder-generational-shift-study

# ? May 22, 2023 18:50

lobster shirt: Jun 14, 2021

Edgar Allen Ho posted:

Anecdotal ofc but teenagers I interact with tend to be way more concerned about normal teenage poo poo which is amplified by social media for sure.

i think this is it but with the inability to escape or disconnect, that's probably driving a lot of mental health issues wrt kids and social media. like smartphones didn't exist when i was growing up. people who were mean to me in elementary and middle school basically could only do it at school. sure they could have called my house or something but that just gets the parents involved. if they were talking poo poo about me after school it was face to face or over the phone, utterly inaccessible to me. nowadays you can be mean to people on social media 24/7, and i can easily see a self-absorbed teenager wanting to scroll through a long public conversation with two or more people making fun of them. or you can much more easily see when people are hanging out without you, seeing people having fun that you're not having, etc. all of this is probably intensely bad for developing minds.

# ? May 22, 2023 18:51

Willa Rogers: Mar 11, 2005

xeria posted:

This seems like the easy answer to me - at least from conservatives championing it - and in line with the push to ban queer-themed books from libraries, schools, etc. and force teachers to never mention anything queer-adjacent ever. Isolate queer youth from anything that might let them feel less alone in the world, and any prospective social groups in kind, and pat themselves on the back for 'eradicating' the lgbtq menace via forcing everyone into closeted misery.

Any liberal support of similar age restrictions is probably coming from that tangential perspective of "all the kids are SUPER depressed now" (among other things, I'm sure) but addressing that is going to require something more nuanced than "just keep them all off social media". Social media is depressing, and a lot of that is because it renders immediately visible in precise detail all of the lovely parts of the world they stand to inherit. That's in addition to real concerns o over things like body image issues exacerbated by influencers and such, but that's also a problem that's existed for longer than even the internet itself; it's just a new flavor of photoshopped magazine covers, and we never 'solved' that problem either.

Social media broadly has some severe flaws, owed at least in part to things like staunch libertarian mindsets of the people who create/run them as platforms, but burning it all down has some real drawbacks as well.

From the Brookings page DV linked, talking about the state-level censorship laws:

quote:

As KOSA neared passage last year, a group of free speech and civil rights groups argued against it. They argued that the bill established a burdensome and vague �duty of care� to prevent harms to minors. The group also charged that the bill would require overly broad content filtering to limit minors� access to certain online content. Moreover, online services would face substantial pressure to over-moderate, including from state Attorneys General seeking to make political points about what kind of information is appropriate for young people. Finally, the bill would cut off a vital avenue of access to information for vulnerable youth.

***

Unsurprisingly then, industry and civil liberties groups have raised free speech concerns in connection with today�s measures to protect kids online, including KOSA. After the California law passed the legislature without a single negative vote, the industry trade association NetChoice filed a First Amendment challenge. It argued that the law was overly broad in applying to virtually all websites. It also said the requirement that online companies assess the risks of various online harms to children and create a plan to mitigate these risks before launching a new product or service �will pressure businesses to identify distant or unlikely harms�and to self-censor accordingly.� Further, NetChoice said the law�s age verification requirement is �unrealistic� and will result in �self-censorship,� and the ban on using children�s information in ways that are materially detrimental is plagued by �undefined� terms, �amorphous� concepts and �generalities,� which would lead companies to �self-censor.�

And from a link from that page to a story about the federal bill:

quote:

WASHINGTON � A bipartisan group of senators on Wednesday introduced legislation that aims to protect children from any harmful effects posed by using social media.

The Protecting Kids on Social Media Act would set a minimum age of 13 to use social media apps, such as Instagram, Facebook and TikTok, and would require parental consent for 13- to 17-year-olds.

U.S. Surgeon General Vivek Murthy said earlier this year that 13 is too young to join social media.

The bill would ban social media companies from recommending content using algorithms for users under the age of 18. It would also require the companies to employ age verification measures, and instructs them to create a pilot project for a government-provided age verification system that platforms could use.

Under the measure, the Federal Trade Commission and state attorneys general would be given authority to enforce the bill's provisions.

"Big tech has exposed our kids to dangerous content and disturbed people," one of the bill's sponsors, Sen. Tom Cotton, R-Ark., said at a news conference. "Moms and dads have felt helpless while their kids suffer, sometimes leading to devastating tragedies."

Sen. Brian Schatz, D-Hawaii., another lead sponsor, said that the bill is a "commonsense and bipartisan approach to help stop this suffering" that has resulted from teens using social media.

"By instituting these simple, straightforward guidelines, we�ll be able to give the next generation of children what every parent wants for their child, which is a chance to grow up happy and healthy," he said.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/rcna81598

So it appears to be untrue, as Leon intimated, that the bill simply prohibits recommending algorithms for minors (unless the NBC story is incorrect); it requires parental consent for all minors to engage in social media.

This would have incredibly negative effects on those teens, say, struggling with gender dysphoria, as well as for other outgroups.

# ? May 22, 2023 18:52

Hieronymous Alloy: Jan 30, 2009; Why! Why!! Why must you refuse to accept that Dr. Hieronymous Alloy's Genetically Enhanced Cream Corn Is Superior to the Leading Brand on the Market!?!; Morbid Hound

A large part of it is probably that people are far more willing to admit they are experiencing depression.

# ? May 22, 2023 18:53

I AM GRANDO: Aug 20, 2006

They�re far more able to recognize that they are depressed as well, though part of that may be a greater tendency to read their own situation as pathological when it might not have been something a clinician would diagnose as depression. But it�s better than just suffering and not knowing why or what you can do about it.

# ? May 22, 2023 18:56

Leon Trotsky 2012: Aug 27, 2009; YOU CAN TRUST ME!*

_{*Israeli Government-affiliated poster}

Willa Rogers posted:

From the Brookings page DV linked, talking about the state-level censorship laws:

And from a link from that page to a story about the federal bill:

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/rcna81598

So it appears to be untrue, as Leon intimated, that the bill simply prohibits recommending algorithms for minors (unless the NBC story is incorrect); it requires parental consent for all minors to engage in social media.

This would have incredibly negative effects on those teens, say, struggling with gender dysphoria, as well as for other outgroups.

Re-read the post. I did not say it only banned using an algorithm. I said it only applied to social media companies that use an algorithm to determine content order for their users and have personal information and that would not apply to the SomethingAwful forums.

Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:

That only applies to websites that use an "algorithmic recommendation system" to determine what users see and collect personal information (name, location, or other specific data that could be used to tie it to a specific individual) of its users as a requirement for access.

Unless SA implements a much more complicated method of organizing post order via algorithm or starts requiring posters to use their real names, then that would not apply to SA.

# ? May 22, 2023 18:57

Gyges: Aug 4, 2004; NOW NO ONE
RECOGNIZE HULK

Hieronymous Alloy posted:

A large part of it is probably that people are far more willing to admit they are experiencing depression.

Yeah, there has been an absolutely massive shift in the acceptability of admitting to mental issues. I still remember when "shrinks" were exclusively for the two distinct groups of crazy people and rich people living in either TV LA or New York.

# ? May 22, 2023 19:00

I AM GRANDO: Aug 20, 2006

Has anyone investigated the psychological consequences of having kids pantomime being shot to death in schools with regular active shooter drills? That would have really hosed me up because it sends a message that the school and society generally sees my murder as inevitable in the same way that an earthquake is inevitable. Just an institutional message that my life means nothing to them.

Do actual kids see it that way?

# ? May 22, 2023 19:08

Willa Rogers: Mar 11, 2005

Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:

Re-read the post. I did not say it only banned using an algorithm. I said it only applied to social media companies that use an algorithm to determine content order for their users and have personal information and that would not apply to the SomethingAwful forums.

Yes, I know you didn't say it & yes, I know that you were referring to SA, which is why I used the word "intimated" instead of "said"; I was pointing out that the bill actually requires parental consent for minors up to age 17 to engage in any social media, which I think is an incredibly important point and one to not be glossed over in our broader discussion of the bill's impact.

# ? May 22, 2023 19:08

Mellow Seas: Oct 9, 2012; Can't post for 10 years!

Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:

Re-read the post. I did not say it only banned using an algorithm. I said it only applied to social media companies that use an algorithm to determine content order for their users and have personal information and that would not apply to the SomethingAwful forums.

Are you sure? The bill requires parental consent for teens 13-17 to use social media and defines "social media" as follows:

quote:

(6)Social media platform
The term social media platform means an online application or website that�

(A)offers services to users in the United States;
(B)allows users to create accounts to publish or distribute to the public or to other users text, images, videos, or other forms of media content

The algorithm section is separate and bans use of algorithms on users under 18, even with parental consent.

The definition above is just... way too broad, really, and I would hope that if the bill advances it will be sculpted down a little bit.

e: Maybe, for sites that do so, like SA, requiring a credit card to join can be considered sufficient? After all, you can't get a credit card in your own name until you're 18, so using one suggests that either you're over 18 or have parental consent.

Gyges posted:

Yeah, there has been an absolutely massive shift in the acceptability of admitting to mental issues. I still remember when "shrinks" were exclusively for the two distinct groups of crazy people and rich people living in either TV LA or New York.

I haven't looked at the stats myself but Twenge says that objective measures like hospital admissions, suicide attempts, etc tend to correlate well with the survey results. Granted the shift in attitudes could have an effect on those too, but it suggests that most of the increase is associated with actual deterioration of public mental health.

Mellow Seas fucked around with this message at 19:17 on May 22, 2023

# ? May 22, 2023 19:12

VorpalBunny: May 1, 2009; Killer Rabbit of Caerbannog

I AM GRANDO posted:

Has anyone investigated the psychological consequences of having kids pantomime being shot to death in schools with regular active shooter drills? That would have really hosed me up because it sends a message that the school and society generally sees my murder as inevitable in the same way that an earthquake is inevitable. Just an institutional message that my life means nothing to them.

Do actual kids see it that way?

My kindergartner built a saferoom in her house in Minecraft, in case there was a lockdown in the game. Yes, this is affecting them.

# ? May 22, 2023 19:12

Willa Rogers: Mar 11, 2005

The kicker to that Brookings summary of current laws advocates for passage of the federal bill (or something like it):

quote:

A new national law to protect kids no matter what state they live in should be a priority for this Congress and appears to be within reach politically. Crucially, such a law should designate a fully empowered regulator to implement and enforce the new requirements. Congress should seize this opportunity to move forward.

eta:

Mellow Seas posted:

Are you sure? The bill requires parental consent for teens 13-17 to use social media and defines "social media" as follows:

The algorithm section is separate and bans use of algorithms on users under 18, even with parental consent.

Good lord, that's a lovely proposal. Alas, with bipartisan support it'll likely pass, unless tech lobbyists can pull something out of their hats.

Willa Rogers fucked around with this message at 19:15 on May 22, 2023

# ? May 22, 2023 19:13

Clarste: Apr 15, 2013; Just how many mistakes have you suffered on the way here?

An uncountable number, to be sure.

I AM GRANDO posted:

Has anyone investigated the psychological consequences of having kids pantomime being shot to death in schools with regular active shooter drills? That would have really hosed me up because it sends a message that the school and society generally sees my murder as inevitable in the same way that an earthquake is inevitable. Just an institutional message that my life means nothing to them.

Do actual kids see it that way?

They used to do nuclear bomb drills back in the Cold War, so something something something.

# ? May 22, 2023 19:16

Leon Trotsky 2012: Aug 27, 2009; YOU CAN TRUST ME!*

_{*Israeli Government-affiliated poster}

Mellow Seas posted:

Are you sure? The bill requires parental consent for teens 13-17 to use social media and defines "social media" as follows:

The algorithm section is separate and bans use of algorithms on users under 18, even with parental consent.

The definition above is just... way too broad, really, and I would hope that if the bill advances it will be sculpted down a little bit.

I haven't looked at the stats myself but Twenge says that objective measures like hospital admissions, suicide attempts, etc tend to correlate well with the survey results. Granted the shift in attitudes could have an effect on those too, but it suggests that most of the increase is associated with actual deterioration of public mental health.

There's actually about a dozen other qualifiers on what Social Media means in the bill and it would absolutely not apply to SA:

quote:

(C) provides the functions described in
4 paragraph (B) other than in support of�
5 (i) facilitating commercial transactions;
7 (ii) facilitating teleconferencing and
8 videoconferencing features that are limited
9 to certain participants in the teleconference
10 or videoconference and are not posted pub11 licly or for broad distribution to other
12 users;
13 (iii) facilitating subscription-based
14 content or newsletters;
15 (iv) facilitating crowd-sourced content
16 for reference guides such as encyclopedias
17 and dictionaries;
18 (v) providing cloud-based electronic
19 storage, including cloud-based storage that
20 allows collaborative editing by invited
21 users;
22 (vi) making video games available for
23 play by users;
24 (vii) reporting or disseminating news;
4
LYN23234 03M S.L.C.
1 (viii) providing other kinds of infor2 mation concerning businesses, products, or
3 travel information, including user reviews
4 or rankings of such businesses, products,
5 or other travel information;
6 (ix) providing educational information
7 or instruction on behalf of or in support of
8 an elementary school or secondary school,
9 as such terms are defined in section 8101
10 of the Elementary and Secondary Edu11 cation Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 7801);
12 (x) facilitating electronic mail or di13 rect messaging between users (except for
14 message boards or applications where users
15 can add themselves to messaging groups
16 consisting of large numbers of users) con17 sisting of text, photos, or videos that are
18 not posted publicly and are visible only to
19 the senders and recipients; or
20 (xi) any other function that provides
21 content to end users but does not allow the
22 dissemination of user-generated content.

# ? May 22, 2023 19:19

Willa Rogers: Mar 11, 2005

Yeah, it was more than a "something something" to have air raid sirens go off unexpectedly and think that the russkies might be bombing you, lol.

Especially when no one bothered to explain to 7 yr old wee willa that "drill" meant "not real, just practice."

eta: But yeah, violence was more likely to be encountered at home instead of at school.

# ? May 22, 2023 19:19

Mellow Seas: Oct 9, 2012; Can't post for 10 years!

Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:

There's actually about a dozen other qualifiers on what Social Media means in the bill and it would absolutely not apply to SA:

Those appear to be functions that exclude a site from "social media" status.

SB 1291 posted:

(B)allows users to create accounts to publish or distribute to the public or to other users text, images, videos, or other forms of media content; and
(C)provides the functions described in paragraph (B) other than in support of�

e: Wait, I think maybe you got that - I'm just not seeing what clause would exclude SA exactly?

e2: Maybe it's this? "(xi)any other function that provides content to end users but does not allow the dissemination of user-generated content."

That is to say, while SA publishes our content, perhaps it doesn't "disseminate" it in the way the bill is referring to? (And maybe that would be where the algorithmic aspect is required to meet the definition of social media?)

Mellow Seas fucked around with this message at 19:24 on May 22, 2023

# ? May 22, 2023 19:20

Gyges: Aug 4, 2004; NOW NO ONE
RECOGNIZE HULK

Mellow Seas posted:

I haven't looked at the stats myself but Twenge says that objective measures like hospital admissions, suicide attempts, etc tend to correlate well with the survey results. Granted the shift in attitudes could have an effect on those too, but it suggests that most of the increase is associated with actual deterioration of public mental health.

Oh, I think people's mental health has absolutely deteriorated over the last few decades due to various environmental changes(War on Terror, leading into the '07 recession, leading into the bubbling turned boiling over political extremism of Trump, leading into Covid, all while we trend closer and closer to the final full hollowing out of society began by Reagan). However there's also almost certainly a large uptick in acknowledgement and openness about mental health that wasn't there before. So there's a big uptick in both direct outcomes(suicide, hospitalizations, etc.) as well as self reporting of building issues. Before you'd see the uptick in medical issues but the polling wouldn't likely show an uptick in people admitting they were having issues that might lead to that.

# ? May 22, 2023 19:25

Leon Trotsky 2012: Aug 27, 2009; YOU CAN TRUST ME!*

_{*Israeli Government-affiliated poster}

Mellow Seas posted:

Those appear to be functions that exclude a site from "social media" status.

Yes, which means they modify clauses (A) and (B).

So, I was clarifying that your original statement that the definition is just:

Mellow Seas posted:

defines "social media" as follows:

quote:
(A)offers services to users in the United States;
(B)allows users to create accounts to publish or distribute to the public or to other users text, images, videos, or other forms of media content

Mellow Seas posted:

The definition above is just... way too broad, really, and I would hope that if the bill advances it will be sculpted down a little bit.

Is not exactly accurate.

That definition is way too broad because it would apply to literally every website that operates in the U.S. that allows users to publish text or images, if those were the only qualifiers.

# ? May 22, 2023 19:25

Mellow Seas: Oct 9, 2012; Can't post for 10 years!

Yeah sorry, I cut off (C) because it didn't seem relevant to the discussion of SA specifically - which, you know, maybe I'm wrong about. Didn't mean to convey that that was the entire definition.

# ? May 22, 2023 19:27

Bar Ran Dun: Jan 22, 2006

Willa Rogers posted:

particularly those related to the pandemic.

I think Willa is right here. And the pandemic has been notably absent from the analysis

# ? May 22, 2023 19:35

Captain_Maclaine: Sep 30, 2001; Every moment that I'm alive, I pray for death!

Clarste posted:

They used to do nuclear bomb drills back in the Cold War, so something something something.

They weren't doing them anymore by my time in school, but growing up in even the late Cold War the constant fear of imminent nuclear annihilation is something that definitely affected me and mine. I remember working myself into a near-panic when I was like 6 after my father explained, in as close to appropriate and simple terms as possible for someone that age, why nuclear weapons were so bad and I got it into my head that we didn't have enough food stored in the root cellar to survive the fallout.

# ? May 22, 2023 19:37

Leon Trotsky 2012: Aug 27, 2009; YOU CAN TRUST ME!*

_{*Israeli Government-affiliated poster}

Mellow Seas posted:

Yeah sorry, I cut off (C) because it didn't seem relevant to the discussion of SA specifically - which, you know, maybe I'm wrong about. Didn't mean to convey that that was the entire definition.

Anything that would lead you to "reasonably believe" that someone is over 13 would qualify under the age verification. There isn't actually any mandate for how to do so. Requiring a credit card would more than fulfill the obligation in the second section of the compliance requirements.

quote:

A social media platform that, for age verification purposes, relies in good faith on information provided by the Pilot Program described in section 7 to verify the age of a user shall be deemed to have taken reasonable steps to verify the age of that user on the platform.

The parental consent provision is also literally just "do something in good faith based on whatever age verification you use if someone claims they are under 13 or 17."

quote:

A social media platform shall take reasonable steps beyond merely requiring attestation, taking into account current parent or guardian relationship verification technologies and documentation, to require the affirmative consent of a parent or guardian to create an account for any individual who the social media platform knows or reasonably believes to be a minor according to the age verification process used by the platform.

Also, the only penalty is the ability for the FTC or state AGs to sue a company for a civil fine if they violate it. It has no application to individuals.

If anything, the problem with the bill is that it clearly isn't really intended to do much practically, but is also written really broadly so that someone could abuse it if the FTC really wanted to just rack up a bunch of fines against a company they didn't like. It's bad and lazy lawmaking that leads to either: nothing changing or someone eventually pushing an extreme use case under it.

# ? May 22, 2023 19:38

Mellow Seas: Oct 9, 2012; Can't post for 10 years!

Bar Ran Dun posted:

I think Willa is right here. And the pandemic has been notably absent from the analysis

Twenge does address the pandemic in the Klein interview; she points out that these trends predate the pandemic (which the graph I posted on the last page also shows) - teen depression was already extremely elevated from 2010 levels by 2019.

I don't think anybody, including Twenge, would dispute that the pandemic and school closures had a serious negative effect. I do think that I AM GRANDO may be right that she has chosen a thesis and is doggedly pursuing it, and using whatever data supports it, but the data is pretty clear that the pandemic is not the sole cause.

# ? May 22, 2023 19:38

Bar Ran Dun: Jan 22, 2006

Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:

It was definitely happening before the pandemic.

Yes, but I think the pandemic accelerated it and there is clearly a pandemic bump.

# ? May 22, 2023 19:40

Riptor: Apr 13, 2003; here's to feelin' good all the time

I AM GRANDO posted:

Has anyone investigated the psychological consequences of having kids pantomime being shot to death in schools with regular active shooter drills? That would have really hosed me up because it sends a message that the school and society generally sees my murder as inevitable in the same way that an earthquake is inevitable. Just an institutional message that my life means nothing to them.

Do actual kids see it that way?

Not criticizing you for this, but I do find it fascinating how frequently people - including on this forum - frame this as if it's something new. I was subjected to post-Columbine active shooter drills in middle and high school 20+ years ago - during which time, by the way, the instructions given to teachers included telling them to post a list of names of the students who were in the room on the door. More than one generation has gone through this poo poo, with the problem only worsening. So kids, as you point out, are rightly feeling that they're being thrown to the meat grinder to appease the gun nuts, and when they talk to their parents about it, their parents' response is basically "yes you are correct about that"

# ? May 22, 2023 19:41

Mellow Seas: Oct 9, 2012; Can't post for 10 years!

Bar Ran Dun posted:

Yes, but I think the pandemic accelerated it and there is clearly a pandemic bump.

You could also consider that they're not entirely unrelated because the pandemic isolation, with the closure of schools and other public places, meant teens were relying more heavily on social media for socialization and peer interaction than they were before.

# ? May 22, 2023 19:41

Leon Trotsky 2012: Aug 27, 2009; YOU CAN TRUST ME!*

_{*Israeli Government-affiliated poster}

Bar Ran Dun posted:

Yes, but I think the pandemic accelerated it and there is clearly a pandemic bump.

I think the data definitely shows that beyond a doubt. But, the pandemic can't be the root cause if the massive spike started 8 years before the pandemic. If the pandemic accelerated it, then it had to exist prior to the pandemic.

# ? May 22, 2023 19:43

Hieronymous Alloy: Jan 30, 2009; Why! Why!! Why must you refuse to accept that Dr. Hieronymous Alloy's Genetically Enhanced Cream Corn Is Superior to the Leading Brand on the Market!?!; Morbid Hound

Riptor posted:

Not criticizing you for this, but I do find it fascinating how frequently people - including on this forum - frame this as if it's something new. I was subjected to post-Columbine active shooter drills in middle and high school 20+ years ago - during which time, by the way, the instructions given to teachers included telling them to post a list of names of the students who were in the room on the door. More than one generation has gone through this poo poo, with the problem only worsening. So kids, as you point out, are rightly feeling that they're being thrown to the meat grinder to appease the gun nuts, and when they talk to their parents about it, their parents' response is basically "yes you are correct about that"

When I was a kid in the 80's, we got nuclear terror talks all the time and I *still* get flashback jump scares about it sometimes. Bad enough that I couldn't sleep at night for the first few weeks of the Ukraine war.

Then the Berlin Wall fell in 1989 and I thought I wouldn't ever have to be scared again, and then ten years later, Columbine happened.

So basically there was a ten year window there of safety. The nineties were a goddam golden era.

# ? May 22, 2023 19:46

Professor Beetus: Apr 12, 2007; They can fight us
But they'll never Beetus

^Perceived safety^

There are undoubtedly any number of reasons for increased mental illness but everyone suddenly carrying around access to a constant stream of unregulated brain poison has to be a factor. Lots of the same stuff existed prior to modern social media and phones, look at the crazy forwarded emails thread. But that content has never had this amount of reach or this little regulation, nor the algorithms designed to force feed you the most addictive and harmful stuff to you, specifically.

Professor Beetus fucked around with this message at 19:51 on May 22, 2023

# ? May 22, 2023 19:47

Boris Galerkin: Dec 17, 2011; I don't understand why I can't harass people online. Seriously, somebody please explain why I shouldn't be allowed to stalk others on social media!

Main Paineframe posted:

The fact that the bill prohibits the use of algorithmic recommendation systems on kids under 18 would certainly make it more difficult to doomscroll. If a user doesn't have an account and doesn't have the algorithm recording everything they see so that it can provide more of the same, then it's much more difficult to stumble into an unbroken feed of pure negativity.

Do companies even need you to have an account anymore these days to turbotarget you with ads? I thought with cookies and fingerprinting it was a simple problem that�s already been solved. Furthermore, without user accounts but still having working recommendation algorithms they could easily just ignore the whole �this user is likely a minor/under 13� datapoint they know about the user (with plausible deniability) and just keep doing what they�re doing?

# ? May 22, 2023 19:58

Jaxyon: Mar 7, 2016; I’m just saying I would like to see a man beat a woman in a cage. Just to be sure.

Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:

I think the data definitely shows that beyond a doubt. But, the pandemic can't be the root cause if the massive spike started 8 years before the pandemic. If the pandemic accelerated it, then it had to exist prior to the pandemic.

Anecdotes are not data but even before the pandemic my teacher friends were talking about how hopeless their students were about the future.

# ? May 22, 2023 20:00

Leon Trotsky 2012: Aug 27, 2009; YOU CAN TRUST ME!*

_{*Israeli Government-affiliated poster}

Boris Galerkin posted:

Do companies even need you to have an account anymore these days to turbotarget you with ads? I thought with cookies and fingerprinting it was a simple problem that�s already been solved. Furthermore, without user accounts but still having working recommendation algorithms they could easily just ignore the whole �this user is likely a minor/under 13� datapoint they know about the user (with plausible deniability) and just keep doing what they�re doing?

Yes to both.

There are ways to create targeted algorithms for people without an account. Twitter already does it.

It would also sidestep the age verification thing. Which is why the bill is very dumb. Because there is a 98% chance it just has no impact whatsoever and a 2% chance of someone at the FTC or a AG's office just going crazy and trying to punish Twitter/whoever they don't like with a fine. If it will almost certainly not have any real impact, then there isn't much of a reason to pass it when it just creates that 2% chance of someone using it to fine a company they don't like out of spite.

# ? May 22, 2023 20:04

Main Paineframe: Oct 27, 2010

Bar Ran Dun posted:

Yes, but I think the pandemic accelerated it and there is clearly a pandemic bump.

It fits right in with the theory that it has a lot to do with teen social dynamics increasingly moving online. The pandemic, which put a kibosh on in-person interactions and drove teenage socialization entirely online, would naturally kick that into high gear.

Boris Galerkin posted:

Do companies even need you to have an account anymore these days to turbotarget you with ads? I thought with cookies and fingerprinting it was a simple problem that�s already been solved. Furthermore, without user accounts but still having working recommendation algorithms they could easily just ignore the whole �this user is likely a minor/under 13� datapoint they know about the user (with plausible deniability) and just keep doing what they�re doing?

There's three major ways to create a typical doomscrolling feed:

follow and engage with a bunch of accounts that post doom stuff
post some spicy hot takes until people are screaming doom in your replies nonstop for weeks
let your eyes linger on some doom content for long enough that the algorithm tracking everything you do realizes you're susceptible to that stuff

1 and 2 require an account. While 3 doesn't require an account, the bill also bans this kind of data-based algorithmic targeting against teens regardless of whether or not they have accounts, which would more or less put a stop to 3.

Importantly, the bill doesn't structure it as "you can algorithmically target users unless you have proof they're under 18", it structures it as "you can't algorithmically target users unless you have proof they're over 18".

# ? May 22, 2023 20:07

Captain_Maclaine: Sep 30, 2001; Every moment that I'm alive, I pray for death!

Hieronymous Alloy posted:

When I was a kid in the 80's, we got nuclear terror talks all the time and I *still* get flashback jump scares about it sometimes.

I still sometimes get wigged out by Emergency Alert System tests on the radio and whatnot due to be absolutely convinced as a kid that any time they came on it could be the ninety-second precursor to dying in nuclear fire. Those three leading beeps followed by dial tone just sometimes reach back to a real place of terror.

Captain_Maclaine fucked around with this message at 20:13 on May 22, 2023

# ? May 22, 2023 20:09

GlyphGryph: Jun 23, 2013; Down came the glitches and burned us in ditches and we slept after eating our dead.

Main Paineframe posted:

Importantly, the bill doesn't structure it as "you can algorithmically target users unless you have proof they're under 18", it structures it as "you can't algorithmically target users unless you have proof they're over 18".

Is there any way I could opt in to adding myself to the system even though I'm over 18? That would sell me on the idea 100%

# ? May 22, 2023 20:10

I AM GRANDO: Aug 20, 2006

Mellow Seas posted:

Twenge does address the pandemic in the Klein interview; she points out that these trends predate the pandemic (which the graph I posted on the last page also shows) - teen depression was already extremely elevated from 2010 levels by 2019.

I don't think anybody, including Twenge, would dispute that the pandemic and school closures had a serious negative effect. I do think that I AM GRANDO may be right that she has chosen a thesis and is doggedly pursuing it, and using whatever data supports it, but the data is pretty clear that the pandemic is not the sole cause.

I�m coming around to seeing the bad features of bullying and self-image problems as being genuine evolutions of those things that make them measurably worse in the social media era, but they�re not epoch-defining any more than television or magazines were epoch-defining. It�s just not the way to think about history and not an explanation for the context against which those things are happening. A psychologist has the tools to see how an individual mind is affected by its immediate sphere, I guess.

# ? May 22, 2023 20:16

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

The development and spread of new forms of information media are epoch-defining.

# ? May 22, 2023 20:22

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 20, 2024 19:23

Oracle: Oct 9, 2004

Blue Footed Booby posted:

Honestly it's probably lots of things. You covered the big one, but I'd be shocked if social media didn't magnify the usual social pressure cooker effects of high school by making drama harder to step away from. Kinda like the 24 hour news cycle, now that I think about it.

Yeah it�s this. Used to be if you hated school and were bullied at least you could go home and escape. Now the bullying can follow you everywhere you go at all times, and since so much social planning and gossip and news of who�s going where when with who etc is through WhatsApp or Snapchat etc (especially for girls) if you cut yourself off from social media you cut yourself out of a lot of socializing period.

I strongly suspect the 24/7 aspect also greatly disturbs kids sleep schedules which has also been proven to increase negative health and behavioral outcomes especially for teens who need more sleep than even younger kids. That�s on top of the lack of sleep todays schools inculcate with the amount of homework they give anymore.

Stay up all night browsing tiktok/insta/seeing all the airbrushed/filtered beautiful people getting thousands of likes, feel crappy about yourself, notice further people posting about all the fun stuff they�re doing without you at your school, feel worse, wake up late get yelled at by parents miss bus fail test because you were too tired to study, try to escape online notice someone�s posted a candid of you asleep in class with drool running down your face that�s gotten more likes and laugh reactions than anything you�ve ever deliberately posted, try and watch endless cat videos to self-medicate, stay up too late, get up late� lather rinse repeat.

# ? May 22, 2023 20:22

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > USCE 2023: Please let them shove a camera up your butt

«‹›797 »