DeSantis signs Florida ban on kids using social media.

Yes, it's parents responsibility, but now that responsibility has been transferred to the government, and TV and video games might be next.

Sorry to say, but teens fighting while others cheer around them is not a new thing, so that's not a good example of "world gone sick". And it also has nothing to do with the topic.

The main argument was the "addictive nature" of social media.

You think that's a good comparison? Alcohol can literally kill kids via poisoning, or accident. Do we need 21 yr limit, when 17 yr olds can be sent to war zones? No, I do not think so. Lot of countries are doing just fine with 16 yr limits for beer and wine.

 

Do you think it is reasonable to address the topic of the thread?

 

Ok, so, for example, parents should decide for their kids if they can have access to guns? Parents should decide for their kids if they have abortions or not? It's a bold new lane you're driving into....

 

I think you're wrong. Over my 80+ years I've seen the 'responsibility of parents' wane due to different situations. One being the need for both parents to work and another media pressure on children to ignore parental advice as 'old fashioned'. 'You need to grow up to modern ways.'
My early childhood in the UK was during WWII and just after. For most children parents were respected and listened to. Discipline was stricter and in most cases punishment was registered for wrongdoing. Over the decades morals have become relaxed, Media and films have become more sexual and violent. Many children are brought up with this and for many young people 'morals' have changed. Children are confused. Under todays 'ideas' does a girl who thinks another girl is attractive wonder if she is a lesbian etc. etc.
I would not want to be brought up in todays crazy world. Sometimes Governments have to step in.

 

It became more 'relaxed' in the 1960 during the hippie era, when 'sexual revolution' drugs, anti-war movement etc kicked into high gear. And the boomer-hippie generation was raised by the WW2 generation, which you say were respected. How did that work out?

Movies were more sexual in the 1980s than today, and of course every generation has older generations telling them how badly they behaved compared to "when I was your age". Parents of the Gen-X were smoking weed, dropping acid, having sex with everyone on two legs with Grateful Dead playing in the background. They don't have a leg to stand on. And yes, the music from decades ago was called "the devils music" with presumably hidden satanic messages and other nonsense.

Children have always been confused. It's part of growing up, and no, the government does NOT need to step in to raise our kids.

 

I think it is time something is done. Tech snuck up on marginal parents and pulled the rug right out from under them.

 

You have your vote and you can use it to vote for bigger government.

 

The tech companies sure as hell are not going to do it.
We have a lot of weak parents in this country that could use some help.

 

It would be ok if it was voluntary. If parents think the job of raising kids is too demanding, they could sign up for a government option, and the kids would be raised according to government standards. The government would have a board of "experts" who decide what's good and proper for the "developing brain". North Korea has implemented something like that, but like Florida, its not voluntary.

 

How about making the parents responsible for the actions of their children?
"We copied this from the internet, took your car and crashed it" for example, should result in the arrest and prosecution of the parents.
Don't laugh.
https://www.the74million.org/article/a-history-of-holding-parents-responsible-for-their-kids-crimes/

 

That would be nothing new.

 

My generation respected our parents in the main.

• Politics
• 
  

• Print

JULY 2, 2002
Decades of Drug Use: Data From the '60s and '70s
BY JENNIFER ROBISON


This is the first of a three-part series examining the history of public opinion on illegal drug use. This segment focuses on the 1960s and 1970s.

The war on drugs has been raging for decades. There is no sign of victory, or even detente. Although they're swamped with anti-drug messages, kids keep taking illegal drugs, and the drugs are getting more dangerous. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's 1999 Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance System found that almost half (47%) of all high school students had used marijuana at least once. Ten percent had tried a form of cocaine.

Since 1969, the first year Gallup asked about illegal drug use, Americans have grown increasingly more concerned about the effects of drugs on young people. For instance, in 1969, 48% of Americans told Gallup that drug use was a serious problem in their community. In 1986, a majority of Americans, 56%, said that the government spent "too little" money fighting drugs. By 1995, 31% said drug use was a "crisis" and an additional 63% said it was "a serious problem" for the nation as a whole.

Why haven't the decades of anti-drug messages solved this problem? The blame tends to be spread across a variety of factors -- unsuccessful government programs, underfunded law enforcement, irresponsible media content -- but part of the problem has certainly been the inefficacy of drug prevention programs. Examining how Americans' attitudes have shifted during the 30+-year history of the drug prevention movement can help us see what the nation has done wrong, and what the nation is starting to do right.

The 1960s

The 1960s brought us tie-dye, sit-ins and fears of large-scale drug use. Hippies smoked marijuana, kids in ghettos pushed heroin, and Timothy Leary, a Harvard professor, urged the world to try LSD. In popular imagination, the 1960s were the heyday of illegal drug use -- but historical data indicate they probably weren't. In fact, surveys show that drug abuse was comparably rare, as was accurate information about the effects of illegal drugs. In a 1969 Gallup poll, only 4% of American adults said they had tried marijuana. Thirty-four percent said they didn't know the effects of marijuana, but 43% thought it was used by many or some high school kids
.It's easy to blame the majority for the acts of the few. In the UK it was generally the few who caused problems that were noticed by the public. 20 troublesome people in a crowd of a 1000 can give an organisation an undeserved bad name.

Again the 'sex with everyone on 2 legs' is simply an exagerration. This was happening long before the 1960 but it was done secret;y.
She concluded: "Divorce like cohabitation largely lost its stigma. Another change was the end of much of the secrecy and shame that had long surrounded aspects of personal behaviour in England.

"Since the 60s almost everything is public, for good or ill. Whatever the reasons, it's a major cultural change."

But Norman Wells of the Family Education Trust said: "No-one denies that cohabitation occurred prior to the sexual revolution nor would anyone suggest that sex never took place outside marriage or that 'shotgun marriages' never happened.
Traditional British family a myth, academic says - BBC News.

 

Says the people that literally wanted to require everyone to stay home and hide in their basements for two years.

There are a million similar laws already pertaining to what minors can or cannot do, and most social media sites already have minimum age requirements.

What this law does, ultimately, is hold the social media companies responsible for what children access.....not the children or the parents.

Your article is behind a pay-wall, but the info I glanced over doesn't go into details....and of course....that's where the truth of the matter is.

 

Its good to hear that was the case where you grew up. Elsewhere....not so much

Maybe because the government trying to police morality has never worked, and that has been my point about the internet ban in Florida as well.

LOL.

 

I am addressing the topic of the thread. No one (or almost no one...) opposes the use of "big government" to protect children by restricting their consumption of alcohol. This is because of the well known (but still not entitrely known) effects that alcohol has on a developing brain. Social media also has negative effects on the developing brain. But first, for some comparison and context, here's some info on why we made it illegal to provide kids with booze:

"Alcohol can negatively impact on your child’s problem solving skills and performance at school as well as potentially affecting their body, mood and mental health.2

There are several parts of the brain affected by alcohol during the teenage years.

However, there are 2 areas that are most affected because of the momentous changes they are undergoing at this time. These are:

• The hippocampus which is responsible for memory and learning. Studies of adolescents show that heavy and extended alcohol use is associated with a 10 per cent reduction in the size of the hippocampus. It also shows that the function of the hippocampus is uniquely sensitive to alcohol at this time and that alcohol may be poisonous to the nerve cells of the hippocampus causing them to be damaged or destroyed.1
• The prefrontal lobe which is important for planning, judgement, decision making, impulse control and language is the area of the brain that changes the most during the teenage years. Research with heavy drinking adolescents shows that these young people have smaller prefrontal lobes than young people of the same age who do not drink.1"

Alcohol and the developing brain (healthywa.wa.gov.au)

These developemental effects are a large part of the reason we task "big government" with restricting young people from consuming alcohol.

As to how social media also negatively impacts childhood developement-

"...there is growing evidence that social media use is associated with harm to young people’s mental health,” said U.S. Surgeon General Dr. Vivek Murthy. “Children are exposed to harmful content on social media, ranging from violent and sexual content, to bullying and harassment. And for too many children, social media use is compromising their sleep and valuable in-person time with family and friends. We are in the middle of a national youth mental health crisis, and I am concerned that social media is an important driver of that crisis – one that we must urgently address.”
Surgeon General Issues New Advisory About Effects Social Media Use Has on Youth Mental Health | HHS.gov

"Several previous studies have focused on the effects of excessive media exposure on children’s health.7–10 Longitudinal studies have indicated that greater levels of screen time are not only associated with poorer physical health and obesity in later life7 but also with lower psychological well-being and mental health issues in school-aged children and adolescents.9,10 Furthermore, previous longitudinal studies have demonstrated that high media use by preschool-aged children is related to conduct problems, hyperactivity, and inattention later in life.11,12 Importantly, longitudinal investigations have found high media exposure to be detrimental to early childhood development.2,3,13 In particular, young children’s cognition and language outcomes have been shown to be affected by high media consumption3,13 with toddlers and children from low socio-economic status (SES) families being especially vulnerable.3,13,14 Among the possible explanations put forward is that screens displace opportunities for children to communicate, interact, play, and therefore to learn"
Associations of media use and early childhood development: cross-sectional findings from the LIFE Child study - PMC (nih.gov)

"A team of researchers studied an ethnically diverse group of 169 students in the sixth and seventh grades from a middle school in rural North Carolina, splitting them into groups according to how often they reported checking Facebook, Instagram and Snapchat feeds.
At around age 12, the students already showed distinct patterns of behavior. Habitual users reported checking their feeds 15 or more times a day; moderate users checked between one and 14 times; nonhabitual users checked less than once a day.
The subjects received full brain scans three times, at approximately one-year intervals, as they played a computerized game that delivered rewards and punishment in the form of smiling or scowling peers.
While carrying out the task, the frequent checkers showed increasing activation of three brain areas: reward-processing circuits, which also respond to experiences like winning money or risk-taking behavior; brain regions that determine salience, picking out what stands out in the environment; and the prefrontal cortex, which helps with regulation and control.
The results showed that “teens who grow up checking social media more often are becoming hypersensitive to feedback from their peers,” Dr. Telzer said."
Social Media Use Is Linked to Brain Changes in Teens, Research Finds - The New York Times (nytimes.com)

...which leads to:

"Part of the challenge for teens is that social media is designed to be addictive. Its reinforcing nature activates the reward center of the brain. Teens often use social media to boost their self-esteem and create a sense of belonging. Combine that with a potential future reward structure and the result is the type of addictive behavior that often leads to depression and anxiety."
Study: Checking social media shows possible connection with brain chemistry changes | New England Psychologist (nepsy.com)

And in general:

"1. Impaired Cognitive Development:
Extended periods of screen time, particularly when involving passive activities like endless scrolling or binge-watching, can hinder cognitive development. It may interfere with acquiring critical cognitive skills, such as sustained attention, problem-solving, and creative thinking. Screen content's rapid-paced, fragmented nature may undermine the brain's ability to engage in deep, focused cognitive processing, limiting children's capacity to learn and retain information effectively.

‍2. Disrupted Sleep Patterns:
Excessive screen time, incredibly close to bedtime, can disrupt the natural sleep-wake cycle. The blue light emitted by screens can suppress the production of melatonin, a hormone crucial for regulating sleep. Altered sleep patterns affect children's overall well-being and impact cognitive functioning, mood regulation, and memory consolidation, all of which are vital for healthy brain development.

‍3. Impaired Social and Emotional Skills:
Excessive screen time may reduce face-to-face social interactions, impeding the development of crucial social and emotional skills. Children may struggle with interpreting nonverbal cues, building empathy, and cultivating meaningful relationships. The passive nature of screen interactions can hinder the development of emotional intelligence and effective communication, potentially leading to difficulties in navigating real-world social scenarios.

‍4. Delayed Language Acquisition:
Excessive screen time can limit opportunities for meaningful verbal interactions, which is essential for language development. Children exposed to screens for extended periods may have fewer chances to engage in rich conversations that foster vocabulary expansion, linguistic creativity, and practical communication skills.

‍5. Heightened Risk of Behavioral Issues:
Prolonged screen time has been associated with an increased risk of behavioral issues such as attention deficits, impulsivity, and hyperactivity. The constant stimuli from screens can overwhelm developing sensory systems, potentially contributing to self-regulation and impulse control difficulties."
Navigating Dopamine, Children, and Screen Time: Unraveling Impacts and Strategies | Integrative Psych (integrative-psych.org)

Thats not to say I think a total ban is the right move. Kids having no social media and then diving into it at an arbitrary age is likely to have negative effects as well, and the above findings seem to focus on children who are consuming an unlimited amount rather than a bit here and there. And there are benefits to social media as well that should be taken into consideration. But clearly social media is altering the developement of children's brains, and we banned children from drinking alcohol for that very reason.

So do you think its reasonable to apply "big government" to the problem of child alcohol abuse, and why is it any different to apply "big government" to the problem of childhood social media consumption?

 

Sorry but there is just no comparison between the two. Booze can kill you and cause other physical damage, while social media.......well, the government speculates that browsing social media can somehow have some kind of mental impact on kids. What happened to the Republican party? Suddenly they are more bleeding heart liberal / big government party than Dems have ever been, and they don't even know it.

 

There is a comparison between the two, and a very strong one. Just because you cut it out of your quote of my previous comment to avoid addressing it doesnt mean it doesnt exist.

 

Cambodians under Pol Pot called it 'Angkar'. We can call it 'GOP', or 'mother'.

 

A similar federal law has been on the books for the past quarter century: COPPA.

 

Certain web sites are required to obtain parental consent. That's how it should be, - let parents decide.

 

This is effectively saying you don't wish to be taken seriously.

 

I didn't get past the paywall for the article, but I thought the actual concern for social media is damage to the kids development, not making them easier targets for predators.

It's an odd issue for me. The social media most of them use looks like the most unappealing and stupid waste of time I can imagine. But I'm generally not a fan of one-size-fits-all parenting from the government. Probably the best approach would be limits from the parents. Something like 2 hours max screen time per day, of any kind, so that they have time to do other things important for their development.

 

No sign of a parent being charged for a crime after buying a child a high performance car and the child then takes it out and crashes or worse, kills someone?
https://www.wusa9.com/article/news/...-hour/65-d64e9a01-f8c4-4c61-9018-5c206c8e0167

 

Sure Corn Pop. I do not worry about it.

 

Yup. This is what fascists under Mussolini dubbed "me ne frego." Seems fitting.