[anonym29]

If we can all agree that cannabis is bad for the still-developing mind, and can generally get on board with the idea that kids should be kept as far away from it as possible, because it's addicting, because it causes long-term alterations to brain development, because it diminishes motivation and hijacks executive functioning networks, why is it so hard for society to consider treating smartphones, social media, and highly-immersive video games like MMORPG's, with essentially all of the same effects, the same way?

I am part of the generation that grew up with MMORPG's from early childhood (I was about 9 years old when I made my first RuneScape account), but approaching 30, I don't game at all anymore for the exact same reasons I don't touch cannabis anymore. Instagram, Snapchat, TikTok, Facebook, it's all the same thing for teenagers. At a neurological level, these platforms are as highly addicting and neural-network-altering as actual psychoactive pharmaceuticals, legal or otherwise.

Paleolithic emotions, medieval institutions, and god-like technology is a combination that we're not nearly as well-adapted to as we think we are.

[rmholt]

> why is it so hard for society to consider treating smartphones, social media, and highly-immersive video games like MMORPG's, with essentially all of the same effects, the same way?

I agree with you. I would consider social media and games addictive. It's just that the SMS app on my phone isn't addictive. Telegram app, the Photo app also isn't.

> Paleolithic emotions, medieval institutions, and god-like technology is a combination that we're not nearly as well-adapted to as we think we are.

Agreed. But my paleolithic emotions aren't addicted to the radio waves of my phone, but to the TikTok app specifically.

[anonym29]

Sorry if my post was unclear, when I say "platforms", I am talking about Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat, TikTok, open-ended MMORPG's, etc - I agree that the problem is the addiction-optimized psychological experiments, not the operating system or device itself.

[rmholt]

Yes!!! That's why I would ban just the "addiction-optimized psychological experiments".

I would also ban them globally, not just for kids but like I'm sure that would be a whole 'nother discussion.

[rmholt]

Because phone is just a box of wires, without apps it's inert.

It's the apps, which corrode everyone's attention span. And unlike weed, I doubt there will be "algorithmic feed" dealers, because no one actually wants an algorithmic feed.

[anonym29]

Sure - to be clear, I am not suggesting banning technology itself. Computers and the internet were also a boon of joy and discovery for me. I self-started programming in TI-basic back in middle school because "computer science" classes that covered anything beyond typing and "here's how to use to a web browser, here's how to use a text editor" skills weren't available until high school for me. I have vivid and fond memories of learning visual basic and making my own GUI apps after this, before eventually starting to learn javascript, python, and "real" programming languages like C.

None of this exploration ever required or involved Facebook or other social media platform or highly immersive video game, save YouTube.

And to be clear, I'm no proponent of the state simply passing universal bans, or infringing upon privacy of adults with facial recognition requirements for using social media, this is a responsibility of parents, many of whom I fear themselves haven't been adequately warned about how addicting these platforms are.

I don't think DARE-style assemblies for both students and parents would be the worst idea to warn both groups about the risks of these platforms, provided they were done honestly, rather than being filled with hyperbole. It doesn't infringe upon anyone's rights, and wouldn't really "cost" anything, but would help educate those who might lack the awareness on the subject.

[rmholt]

> I don't think DARE-style assemblies for both students and parents would be the worst idea to warn both groups about the risks of these platforms, provided they were done honestly, rather than being filled with hyperbole.

Yeah that's fair. Probably can't hurt anything with that. But it's hard to get the actual danger across.

> None of this exploration ever required or involved Facebook or other social media platform or highly immersive video game, save YouTube.

That's why I am gunning to limit these kind of platforms, specifically.

> It doesn't infringe upon anyone's rights, and wouldn't really "cost" anything,

Well it depends. If these assemblies worked, they would "cost" the platforms potential engagement and potential revenue. Which is kind of a pointless distinction, I just thought it's interesting