> Part of me thinks that if the case against social media was stronger, it would not be being litigated on substack.

It's litigated all over and has been for a decade.

Australia for example has set an age limit of 16 to have social media. France 15. Schools or countries are trying various phone bans. There's research into it. There are whistleblowers telling about Facebook's own research they've suppressed as it would show some of their harm.

Perhaps you spend too much time on social media?

▲

Lerc 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

I am aware that laws have been passed on a wide range of issues against expert advice. Whether it be protecting the right to assault children, punishing addicts instead of preventing harm, or cutting children off from their most used method of first contact with mental health-care

Since you bring up the Australian law as an example I shall check the expert opinion on that.

For the second time in a week, I find myself in the peculiar position of seeing our research misinterpreted and used to support specific (and ill-advised) policy - this time by the Australian government to justify a blanket social media ban for those under 16.

https://www.linkedin.com/posts/akprzybylski_the-communicatio...

This open-letter, signed by over 140 Australian academics, international experts, and civil society organisations, addresses the proposal to ‘ban’ children from social media until the age of 16. They argue that a ‘ban’ is too blunt an instrument to address risks effectively and that any restrictions must be designed with care.

https://apo.org.au/node/328608

https://ccyp.wa.gov.au/news/anzccga-joint-statement-on-the-s...

https://humanrights.gov.au/about/news/proposed-social-media-...

▲

zarzavat 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> set an age limit of 16 to have social media

This just shows how futile it is. How do you actually stop someone from using social media? If a 15 year old signs up for Mastodon what is Australia going to do about it?

▲

procaryote 2 days ago | parent [-]

I'm guessing it's mostly useful as a guide for parents, but I haven't seen any hard data

It shows it's not just a debate on substack though

	▲	danhau 2 days ago \| parent [-]
		Indeed. I think most phones already have some kind of parental control. I know Apple devices do. With screen time you can limit your kids social media use. Shouldn‘t be rocket science to ban those apps automatically, if that isn‘t already possible. OS vendors could use that to implement the country specific bans outright. This does require though, that parents set up their kids‘ phones correctly.

▲

pembrook 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

You’re strengthening OP’s point instead of undermining it.

The “some governments banned it for kids” argument is an appeal to authority, a logical fallacy.

The actions of tech-reactionist leftist governments absolutely do not constitute sound science or evidence in this matter.

And if you’re claiming the French government only makes government policy based on sound data, I will point you to their currently unraveling government over the mathematically impossible social pension scheme they’ve created.

▲

procaryote 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

Responding to the point "it's [only] litigated on substack", things like government bans are relevant counter-examples

The bans might be unfounded or well founded, you might agree with them or not, but clearly the idea that social media might be bad has spread beyond substack

▲

Lerc 2 days ago | parent [-]

At no point did I have your inserted [only] in my mind when I wrote that.

I certainly do think the idea that social media might be bad has spread far and wide. What I would like to see is experts in the field reaching a consensus on to what extent that idea is true, and what should be done about it.

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-024-00902-2#ref-CR6

It should be noted a lot of ideas have spread in recent years. We would do well to not believe all of them, no matter how comforting it is to externalize blame.

	▲	procaryote 16 hours ago \| parent [-]
		My apologies for misreading you then. I didn't expect you to object specifically to it being debated on substack in addition to by scientists, regulators etc. How is that a signal the case against social media is weak?

▲

throw4847285 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

Your argument contains the fallacy fallacy, a logical fallacy in which one wrongly cites an informal fallacy in order to discredit a valid argument.

The actions of several democratic governments is evidence that there is enough popular support for these actions to argue for a broader trend. And before you try for a gotcha, I am well aware that a democratic government can enact regulations without a direct vote proving that a majority of people support such an action. But inasmuch as a government reflects the will of the governed, etc etc etc.

▲

pembrook 2 days ago | parent [-]

Huh? Claiming something is true because a government supports it, is quite possibly the most cut-and-dry definition of an appeal to authority I've ever seen.

	▲	dcow 2 days ago \| parent \| next [-]
		Governments aren’t banning or restricting it because “god said it was bad”. Nor is the GGGP arguing that we should take it seriously because governments do so. Those would be specific appeals to authority. The GGGP argument uses examples of cases where social media has been taken seriously enough to result in government regulation to directly rebut the GGGGP’s claim that social media is only being discussed on substack and not more broadly.
	▲	Chris2048 2 days ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		"several democratic governments"