Australia Bans Under 16's from Social Media

[Palmfever]

"Social media users under the age of 16 are set to be barred from using social media, under legislation expected to be introduced to parliament this month.

The proposed legislation won't include exemptions for young people who already have social media accounts or those with parental consent."

Children under 16 to be banned from social media under government's proposed changes

Labor has backed setting the social media minimum age cut-off at 16 years old, with legislation set to be introduced this month.

www.abc.net.au

AFAIK, Australia *only* produces restrictive laws as an ongoing and unsettling trend. In this case, it goes too far by intruding on parental rights. I'm curious how others see this.

Council Post: Technology Is On The Rise, While IQ Is On The Decline

Does the rise and advancement of technology help or hurt our intelligence?

www.forbes.com

The overwhelming majority of studies about modern media and the mind, however, have focused on violence on and off the screen. Although there has been more than 50 years’ worth of research, most people seem to have the idea that, while these studies suggest there might be a small link, the jury is still out. Wrong, says John Murray, a developmental psychologist from Kansas State University, one of the editors of the book Children and Television: Fifty years of research and author of US government-sponsored reports in 1972 and 1982. Murray is exasperated by this kind of ambivalence. He says it is impossible to conclude anything other than that violence on TV has raised the level of violence and aggression in our society – and while research on computer games has begun only recently, what there is suggests violent games have an even stronger effect.

“Video games are more worrisome than TV because they are interactive,” says Murray. Children learn best by demonstration and then imitation, with rewards for getting things right. “That’s exactly what video games do,” he says.

Mind-altering media

The electronic age is changing our brains, but are we getting smarter, or dumb and dangerous? New Scientist investigates

www.newscientist.com

 

[Landon Caeli]

Council Post: Technology Is On The Rise, While IQ Is On The Decline

Does the rise and advancement of technology help or hurt our intelligence?

www.forbes.com

The overwhelming majority of studies about modern media and the mind, however, have focused on violence on and off the screen. Although there has been more than 50 years’ worth of research, most people seem to have the idea that, while these studies suggest there might be a small link, the jury is still out. Wrong, says John Murray, a developmental psychologist from Kansas State University, one of the editors of the book Children and Television: Fifty years of research and author of US government-sponsored reports in 1972 and 1982. Murray is exasperated by this kind of ambivalence. He says it is impossible to conclude anything other than that violence on TV has raised the level of violence and aggression in our society – and while research on computer games has begun only recently, what there is suggests violent games have an even stronger effect.

“Video games are more worrisome than TV because they are interactive,” says Murray. Children learn best by demonstration and then imitation, with rewards for getting things right. “That’s exactly what video games do,” he says.

Mind-altering media

The electronic age is changing our brains, but are we getting smarter, or dumb and dangerous? New Scientist investigates

www.newscientist.com

But violent video games and social media are two different things.

...What you and I are doing right now is what social media is. We're posting on a forum.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

"Suicide rose steadily for 23 years (1981 to 1994) and then that trend ceased for 23 years (1994 to 2017). Therefore we throw out the second 23 years as an outlier. Because that fits our agenda."

This is really bad logic man. You're even fudging the numbers/timespans.

I still don't think you're getting the gist of what I'm talking about.

So what's your theory for what caused the massive dip in suicide (off of its increasing trend) during the time window of 1994-2003?

Did everyone's mental health magically improve on its own over that 10 years, and then magically go back to where it was before between the years of 2007 and 2017?

The "massive increase in suicides" is only a massive increase if you only look at 2007-2017.

if you look at 1980-2017...the rate of 14.5 in 2017 isn't wildly out of sorts.

 

[Palmfever]

But violent video games and social media are two different things.

...What you and I are doing right now is what social media is. We're posting on a forum.

Starting around age 10, children’s brains undergo a fundamental shift that spurs them to seek social rewards, including attention and approval from their peers.

At the same time, we hand them smartphones (Kids & Tech, Influence Central, 2018).

Social media platforms like Instagram, YouTube, TikTok, and Snapchat have provided crucial opportunities for interaction that are a normal part of development—especially during a time of severe isolation prompted by the pandemic. But they’ve also been increasingly linked to mental health problems, including anxiety, depressive symptoms, and body image concerns.

So, why do kids face a higher risk of harm on social media?

Let’s dig deeper.

Between the ages of 10 and 12, changes in the brain make social rewards—compliments on a new hairstyle, laughter from a classmate—start to feel a lot more satisfying. Specifically, receptors for the “happy hormones” oxytocin and dopamine multiply in a part of the brain called the ventral striatum, making preteens extra sensitive to attention and admiration from others.

[Related: What neuroscience tells us about the teenage brain]

“We know that social media activity is closely tied to the ventral striatum,” said Mitch Prinstein, APA’s chief science officer. “This region gets a dopamine and oxytocin rush whenever we experience social rewards.”

Right next door to the ventral striatum lies the ventral pallidum, a region of the brain key for motivating action. These structures, which lie beneath the more recently evolved cortex, are older parts of the brain that drive instinctual behaviors.

In adulthood, social media use is also linked to activation in the brain’s reward centers, but two key differences may lessen harm, Prinstein said. First, adults tend to have a fixed sense of self that relies less on feedback from peers. Second, adults have a more mature prefrontal cortex, an area that can help regulate emotional responses to social rewards.

Permanent and public​

In youth, the drive for approval has historically helped kids and teens develop healthy social skills and connections. But arriving at school in a new pair of designer jeans, hoping your crush will smile at you in the hallway, is worlds away from posting a video on TikTok that may get thousands of views and likes, Prinstein said.
Part of what makes online interactions so different from in-person ones is their permanent—and often public—nature, according to research by Jacqueline Nesi, PhD, an assistant professor of psychology at Brown University (Psychological Inquiry, Vol. 21, No. 3, 2020).
“After you walk away from a regular conversation, you don’t know if the other person liked it, or if anyone else liked it—and it’s over,” Prinstein said. “That’s not true on social media.”
Instead, kids, their friends, and even people they’ve never met can continue to seek, deliver, or withhold social rewards in the form of likes, comments, views, and follows.
See more

 

[zippy2006]

The "massive increase in suicides" is only a massive increase if you only look at 2007-2017.

if you look at 1980-2017...the rate of 14.5 in 2017 isn't wildly out of sorts.

"If we just omit these 23 years of data then there is no increase at all." Again, bad argument.

"Wildly out of sorts" =/= "Massive Increase"

So what's your theory for what caused the massive dip in suicide (off of its increasing trend) during the time window of 1994-2003?

I don't know. Do you? Presumably there are reasons for why the rate of suicide changes over time, and very competent social scientists are arguing that the increase at the time of social media was due to social media. You've only presented fallacies or false information (such as your claim that "the uptick started in 2000"). If you don't believe me, try to go ahead and formalize any of the arguments that you think you have in your pocket.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

"If we just omit these 23 years of data then there is no increase at all." Again, bad argument.

"Wildly out of sorts" =/= "Massive Increase"


I don't know. Do you? Presumably there are reasons for why the rate of suicide changes over time, and very competent social scientists are arguing that the increase at the time of social media was due to social media. You've only presented fallacies or false information (such as your claim that "the uptick started in 2000"). If you don't believe me, try to go ahead and formalize any of the arguments that you think you have in your pocket.

I fail to see where I'm omitting anything here....clearly we're getting our lines crossed or you're thinking I'm trying to "prove something" that I'm not. I'm not omitting anything, I'm actually to put emphasis on that dip...not trying to ignore it.

As far as the reasons.

Why Did Teen Suicides Decline Sharply from 1990 to 2005?

The suicide rate for U.S. teens increased from 1950 to 1990 and then decreased. Here is my theory as to why teens' mental health improved for a few years beginning about 1990.

www.psychologytoday.com

I'm saying that the drop in youth suicides that happened from 1994 through 2003 was just as pronounced as the increase that occurred from 2007 to 2017. And if that dip was something artificially induced (for whatever reason), then that needs to be factored in when considering the swift uptick back up the final 10 years of the graph.

Had that unexpected dramatic drop never happened, then the increase that took place from 2007 to 2017 wouldn't look like any sort of deviation from the trend it was already on from 1950 through 1990.

Dramatic Changes in Teen Suicide Rates Over Seven Decades

Why did the teen suicide rate, especially for boys, rise dramatically from 1950 to 1990, then fall dramatically, and then rise again after 2010?

www.psychologytoday.com

Psychologists are asking the exact same questions I am...per the article:

The third dramatic thing to notice is the sharp drop in male suicides between 1990 and 2002 and a more modest decline in rate for females over that 12-year span.

The fourth dramatic thing to notice is that the male rate rose steeply again from 2010 to 2018. In fact, over this period it rose at about the same high rate as it had risen between 1970 and 1990, though it did not quite reach the 1990 peak.

Even the experts acknowledge that the sharp drop I'm referring to is something of an anomaly and deviation from the trend that had begun in 1950 per the linked article.

 

[zippy2006]

I'm saying that the drop in youth suicides that happened from 1994 through 2003 was just as pronounced as the increase that occurred from 2007 to 2017. And if that dip was something artificially induced (for whatever reason), then that needs to be factored in when considering the swift uptick back up the final 10 years of the graph.

Let's try to formalize this per my last post:

1. The drop was just as pronounced as the increase
2. (Suppose) The drop was artificially induced
3. Therefore, the increase was not due to social media

This argument is completely invalid, as I predicted it would be. Do you have a valid argument for why the increase is not due to social media?

Had that unexpected dramatic drop never happened, then the increase that took place from 2007 to 2017 wouldn't look like any sort of deviation from the trend it was already on from 1950 through 1990.

This is the fallacy of begging the question. There is no reason at all to believe that, "If the drop had not happened, then the increase would not have been as steep."

 

[ThatRobGuy]

This argument is completely invalid, as I predicted it would be. Do you have a valid argument for why the increase is not due to social media?

...burden of proof is on the affirmative position.

Nobody can "definitively prove it wasn't because of social media"

I believe that's what's known as an "exclusionary inductive argument"

By that logic, since they discontinued the Ford Taurus that year, if you can't definitively prove it wasn't because of that, that must mean the Ford Taurus theory valid until someone can.

This is the fallacy of begging the question. There is no reason at all to believe that, "If the drop had not happened, then the increase would not have been as steep."

The alternative would be...

Hypothesizing that if it weren't for social media, the suicide rates would've had that unexpected swift drop from 1994-2003 (that left experts scratching their heads a bit), and stayed that low and never gone up again.

Is that what you're hypothesizing?


I'm not saying, "it definitely wasn't social media", I'm saying that nobody has conclusively proved that it is with methods that control for all the variables. Right now, their arguments are about as strong as the arguments claiming it was video games and heavy metal music back in the 80's and 90's.

Especially when you're talking about measures aimed at restricting peoples' access to platforms and information. If they ban social media, and it turns out in 10 years they're wrong about that, and people keep offing themselves at increasing rates, they'd better have a backup theory in the hopper, because people aren't going to be pleased with that.

 

[zippy2006]

...burden of proof is on the affirmative position.

Lol. So what are you doing with these charts and these posts if you don't think they prove anything?

The alternative would be...

Hypothesizing that if it weren't for social media, the suicide rates would've had that unexpected swift drop from 1994-2003, and stayed that low and never gone up again.

Is that what you're hypothesizing?

Sure, the hypothesis is that if social media never existed then that swift uptick right at the introduction of social media would not have occurred. Of course that is what the social scientists and people with actual valid arguments are claiming.

The idea that it would have remained eternally stable is another strawman.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Sure, the hypothesis is that if social media never existed then that swift uptick right at the introduction of social media would not have occurred. Of course that is what the social scientists and people with actual valid arguments are claiming.

The idea that it would have remained eternally stable is another strawman.

That's not what they're all saying though, there is some dissention about it from within the field.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2451958821000427#sec5

The Messy Truth About Teen Social Media Use and Suicide Risk

It's time to dive deeper into what we know about social media and suicide risk, and question those media headlines that tell you we have it all figured out.

www.psychologytoday.com

There is not enough research on suicide risk and social media “screen time” (or how long teens use social media in a typical day), and even less research that uses designs to tease apart whether teens' social media use contributes to suicide risk, or whether youth who are already at risk are using more social media.

Lol. So what are you doing with these charts and these posts if you don't think they prove anything?

Providing factors that could be a worthwhile challenge to the theory that social media to blame.

There were some psychologists who were just as sure video games were causing it back in the early-mid 90's. Then the suicide rates dropped drastically from 1994-2003 (despite video games only becoming more ubiquitous, more violent, and more realistic during that time window)

 

[Bradskii]

“After you walk away from a regular conversation, you don’t know if the other person liked it, or if anyone else liked it—and it’s over,” Prinstein said. “That’s not true on social media.”
Instead, kids, their friends, and even people they’ve never met can continue to seek, deliver, or withhold social rewards in the form of likes, comments, views, and follows.
See more

Therein lies the problem. If you are disliked or bullied on social media, then all your friends get to know about it. And it's a lot easier to gain a lot plus points with the group by joining in rather than lose a lot by sticking up for someone.

 

[zippy2006]

Providing factors that could be a worthwhile challenge to the theory that social media to blame.

But you don't have any valid arguments, so you can't be doing that. If you can't show why something you've presented bears on the topic, then you're just throwing stuff at a wall and hoping something sticks.

 

[o_mlly]

"Social media users under the age of 16 are set to be barred from using social media, under legislation expected to be introduced to parliament this month.

The proposed legislation won't include exemptions for young people who already have social media accounts or those with parental consent."

Children under 16 to be banned from social media under government's proposed changes

Labor has backed setting the social media minimum age cut-off at 16 years old, with legislation set to be introduced this month.

www.abc.net.au

AFAIK, Australia *only* produces restrictive laws as an ongoing and unsettling trend. In this case, it goes too far by intruding on parental rights. I'm curious how others see this.

Parents always could use help in raising their children. Especially true today.

However, the part of the proposed legislation that I find troubling is:

Prime Minister Anthony Albanese also confirmed on Thursday that the proposed legislation would not include grandfathering arrangements — meaning young people already on social media would not be exempt — nor would it allow for exemptions due to parental consent.​

​

While parents need backup support, they do not, and should not, be replaced by the state. We can't choose our parents, so some parents may give consent to some children that arguably those parents should not have given. But the perfect is always the enemy of that which is merely good.

 

[durangodawood]

Parents always could use help in raising their children. Especially true today.

However, the part of the proposed legislation that I find troubling is:

Prime Minister Anthony Albanese also confirmed on Thursday that the proposed legislation would not include grandfathering arrangements — meaning young people already on social media would not be exempt — nor would it allow for exemptions due to parental consent.​

​

While parents need backup support, they do not, and should not, be replaced by the state. We can't choose our parents, so some parents may give consent to some children that arguably those parents should not have given. But the perfect is always the enemy of that which is merely good.

Why does this argument work for soc media but not for alcohol?

(Assuming you do think it is acceptable the for parents to be "replaced by the state" re alcohol.)

 

[ThatRobGuy]

But you don't have any valid arguments, so you can't be doing that. If you can't show why something you've presented bears on the topic, then you're just throwing stuff at a wall and hoping something sticks.

I presented a valid argument earlier

Which was, the sharp drop in suicide rates that started in the 90's was result of widespread usage of SSRI's being introduced. And a least a portion of the uptick back up was the result of the efficacy of those original antidepressant diminishing over time.


Per PsychiatryToday
They found that the decline in suicides accelerated 1990's when the SSRIs were more widely introduced. The rate of suicides in the 1990s was significantly inversely related to the rate of antidepressant prescribing in most age and gender groups.

We found strong evidence of a beneficial impact of antidepressant prescribing on suicide rates. Among both men and women, the largest declines in suicide occurred in the age groups with the highest exposure to antidepressants across the study period.


Per BMJ:

And per Johns Hopkins:
Symptoms return for up to 33% of people using SSRI antidepressants after 5 years, and for roughly 50% of people using them after 10 years.

The approach of ACR (augment, combine, replace) didn't start getting studied and tested (in any large way in major trials) until 2006 (which means implementation on a wider scale would've come later)

Now they understand the importance of rotating out and cycling the various drugs every so often for people, but that concept wasn't as well-understood back when they first started prescribing a lot of them as SSRIs were very new (they went from first introducing them, to 5 million prescriptions 5 years later).

So we can make some logical inferences off of that data.

Let's say that 2,000,000 people with some level of suicidal ideation began taking SSRIs in 1994.

Per the numbers provided by Johns Hopkins:
Symptoms can begin returning for up to 660,000 of them by 1999.
And up to 1,000,000 of them by 2004.

Given the timelines, it seems to be a plausible theory and line up with this graph pretty well, does it not?

We know for a fact that there was an SSRI "boom" that started in the early 90's that they directly credit with that big reduction in suicides seen during that time. And Per Johns Hopkins, of those early adopters of the original SSRI drugs, Symptoms would return for 33-50% of them by early-mid 2000's.


So, the theories have on the table for the increase in suicides that really started to shoot up in 2007-2010 are:
"Social media became widespread at that time"
and
"Antidepressants, that were working great for people in the 90's when they first stared on them, stopped working as well for millions of people at that time and they weren't quite sure of the best way to handle that yet"


You don't see the latter as being a valid possibility, or at least a major contributor?

 

[o_mlly]

Why does this argument work for soc media but not for alcohol?

? It does work for alcohol.

 

[durangodawood]

? It does work for alcohol.

You think the state should leave alcohol access completely up to parents and dispense with the legal age limits?

 

[Bradskii]

Why does this argument work for soc media but not for alcohol?

I'd suggest that it does.

The government says that children shouldn't be able to buy alcohol. I think we'd all agree that that's a sensible rule. They say that children shouldn't be able to access social media. For the sake of the argument, let's say that we all agree on that as well. But it's not up to the powers that be to rule on when I think either is acceptable. I see the age limits as guidlines.

When children are quite young, you keep them on a tight leash. You control almost all of what they do. But as they grow older, you have to lengthen that leash and give them more responsibility. How much depends on the child. It's ridiculous to think that all children mature at the same rate (especially when it comes to male v female). But you don't keep a tight leash on them until a particular day and then cut them loose. You don't say 'No alcohol at all. But tomorrow it's your 18th birthday so invite all your mates over and I'll supply the beer'. That's not going to end well.

So it was me (plus the other half) that decided when the right age was for them to, in this case, have a drink. So there was the occasional beer for both of them and a glass or two of wine at dinner. We were effectively saying to them 'Look, we know that you've had a few drinks at a party at some point, but we trust you to do it in moderation, as we are doing now. We trust you'.

It would be the same with social media. I'd be the one deciding what's suitable, whatever the government rules are.

 

[durangodawood]

I'd suggest that it does.

The government says that children shouldn't be able to buy alcohol. I think we'd all agree that that's a sensible rule.

I thought the argument was: the state should lay off soc media restrictions because that would be the state taking the place of parents - which is, presumably, bad.

So Im asking: by the same token, should the state abandon alcohol age limits?

As for your familys approach to alc, it seems quite sensible.

 

[Bradskii]

I thought the argument was: the state should lay off soc media restrictions because that would be the state taking the place of parents - which is, presumably, bad.

So Im asking: by the same token, should the state abandon alcohol age limits?

No. Alcohol age limits should stay. And through gritted teeth I would then have to agree that age limits for social media would be applicable. But I reserve the right to ignore both when it comes to my kids ('cept that they're in their late 30's).

As far as I recall, there are no punishments being considered for parents or children breaking any proposed law on age limits for social media. If there were, then I definitely wouldn't support it. It would be unreasonable. Just as it would be unreasonable for charging me for giving my 17 year old a glass of wine at dinner or a cold beer at the beach.