[aierou]

No, dude. Conclusions cannot be made based on feelings. Where exactly is that step in the scientific method? It certainly doesn't sound like the rigorous skepticism that should be applied to what is observed.

I am appalled at the willingness to make huge logical leaps on the basis of emotions or morality in this thread.

[tgv]

We're talking reasonably informed caution here. Science doesn't come into it, at all. Science is trying to make sense of the world, this is about preventing harm. And, as I wrote elsewhere, the social sciences have almost nothing to offer in terms of policy and decision making. They're too unreliable.

We can however easily imagine what's happening in this particular case, and the data support it. The damages are enormous. Like climate change, continuing is not an option, nor is waiting until we've got conclusive evidence, because that will take ages.

Making claims based on scientific method (not even theory or findings, because we have them, and they support the tenor of the article) is not helpful.

[tssva]

> We can however easily imagine what's happening in this particular case, and the data support it.

I have yet to see credible data regarding causation and I prefer that large societal decisions not be made based upon imagination. Comic books, pinball, rock n roll, violent video games at some point were all claimed to be destroying our youth and there was "data" presented to back it up.

Teen drug, alcohol, nicotine and sexual activity are significantly down since 2009. Maybe social media is causing that too and on the whole is a benefit. Or maybe teens are more depressed because they aren't getting high, drinking, smoking or screwing enough.

> Like climate change

Climate change has actual quality data and science behind it, so it is nothing alike.

[tgv]

> Climate change has actual quality data and science behind it, so it is nothing alike.

I don't disagree, but

> I prefer that large societal decisions not be made based upon imagination

with that attitude, no decision can ever be taken. Social sciences can't produce the evidence you need. It's correlations all the way.

But also:

* Not acting is also taking a decision, because social media isn't going to stop any time soon. How's there evidence for just letting things continue?

* How is stopping children (until, say, 18) a large societal decision? That's just minor. There isn't even a risk involved. Children didn't have social media until 10-15 years ago at all. Did that stump their progress or something?

[tssva]

Those under 18 are people too and they have fundamental rights just as other people do. This includes free speech rights. This right is even specifically protected by Article 13 of the Convention on the Rights of Children. I recognize that free speech rights have limitations, but I consider any decision by the state to limit speech major and should require more than casual correlation based upon shady data. Individual parents can decide what they want for their children but the state should stay out of it.