[longtom]

I think humans are a lot more robust than commonly assumed. Most of us do not break due to their mere experiences as long as their fundamental needs (food, being loved, goals and so on) are fulfilled. Once these needs are not fulfilled they may be more vulnerable though.

[lotsofpulp]

I feel the opposite. Based on how people (and myself) behave, humans love to prioritize short term dopamine hits with long term costs. Whether it be children addicted to YouTube, people addicted to sugar and inactivity (see obesity), refreshing Twitter/Facebook/Reddit/instagram/Hacker News for new bits of information, etc. We’re even willing to trash the planet if it gives us the satisfaction of living in single family homes with parking and some land for heavily fertilized grass.

As a species, humans are getting better at using our susceptibility of the short term pleasures to operate businesses, but the long term effects are probably not going to be desirable.

[longtom]

The points you are raising (addiction) seem to be somewhat unrelated to what was being discussed (inappropriate content).

Of course addictions are bad, but do you have any data supporting your claim that technology has increased the number of addicts? People vulnerable to be drawn to short-term dopamine hits have always existed, whether to food, gambling, or actual drugs.

[etse]

There are many negative responses to inappropriate content, and with regards to the subtopic of "breaking", addiction is one. Addiction can exacerbate other responses such as depression or anxiety, but I wouldn't rule it out as a response.

As for increased number of addicts, I think the fact that there are technology addicts where there didn't used to be (before tech), should be a sufficient logical claim.

Speaking of which, do you have data on your specific claim on the resilience of human psychology against negative tech/media experiences?

[longtom]

> As for increased number of addicts, I think the fact that there are technology addicts where there didn't used to be (before tech), should be a sufficient logical claim.

No, because those people may have engaged in other unhealthy lifestyles if the technology didn't exist.

> Speaking of which, do you have data on your specific claim on the resilience of human psychology against negative tech/media experiences?

Yes, I've linked some in a comment below.

[lotsofpulp]

I was assuming the inappropriate content included videos such as the unboxing or adults playing with toys videos that seem to entrance children. I don't have data for technology increasing number of addicts, but my claim is that people seem to be susceptible to a number of cognitive biases that hinder their long term survival.

[claudiawerner]

It is, however, important to take note of how this robustness varies with age, just what proportion of people "most" counts as, and whether the most absolute category of humans "breaking" is most appropriate when we take into account the massive variation of mental states, disorders and the entire field of media effects and child psychology.

[longtom]

But consider for example the link between violent video games and prosocial outcomes. The effect sizes are tiny. The downsides of additional filters will very likely outweigh anything that can be gained regarding mental health and childhood development etc. I'd wager there are much much more effective ways of improving quality of life, e.g. improving community life, reducing working hours, reduce economic inequality etc.

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10964-019-01069-0

https://www.mayamathur.com/publication/metawarspreprint.pdf

[dgzl]

I think young humans are not developed enough to understand that the media's high praise of corruptive behavior is not healthy. I think young people are growing up thinking all the outrageous and adult content on the media platforms is not just some outlier entertainment, but rather that's what their future is going to be.