| > Or, just hear me out, this is what a moral panic looks like on social media. Could be, could be, except moral panics are usually absent evidence, whereas here we have meta's own researchers discovering and attempting to suppress the knowledge that people become addicted - https://www.nationalreview.com/news/meta-researchers-private... Or evidence that "Company documents cited in the complaint described several Meta officials acknowledging the company designed its products to exploit shortcomings in youthful psychology" - https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2023/nov/27/meta-inst... There's also research into its mental health consequences (a single example of many pieces of research available) - https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36219756/ And legal opinions (the references on this one are good and contain further information on the poor mental health outcomes associated with youth social media use) - https://law.stanford.edu/2024/05/20/social-media-addiction-a... Not to mention ongoing courtcases etc. Dismissing this as "moral panic" seems wrong with that background of well-grounded concern. > To quote the top replies to that thread: Those are neither the best nor the top replies, why did you feel the need to misrepresent that? > I'd examine why you're so willing to believe what you read on social media despite the lack of real data and evidence towards the claims you're accepting at face value. I'd examine why you're so keen to ignore the real data and evidence in favour of your moral panic theory. |