[SirMaster]

But if you stop using social media, you don't still have a risk of lung cancer in the future.

The effects of social media usage are surely reversible by stopping using it and then some retraining of the brain.

The effects of years of smoking are not so reversible in terms of what it does to your body.

[wussboy]

I hope you're right but I think you're dead wrong. Social media has not only affected the mental health of millions of people negatively, it has brought about social, political and economic harms that will affect the planet for generations.

[glenstein]

Right, the thing it reminds me of is the long-term impact of reading to your kids at a young age, it has measurable effects equivalent to expensive professional education choices you could make later on in life, although I forget the exact comparison.

But also it doesn't have to exactly reproduce the harms of smoking. It could be that the effects are primarily present tense and completely gone if you stop the habit, and nevertheless, amount to a cumulative social harm that makes it a worthy analogy to smoking. Social media also doesn't cause secondhand smoke or stained teeth, or unpleasurable odors on your person or home or furniture. It doesn't leave butts or debris on the ground. There's probably a lot more I'm not thinking of either, but you can see how nitpicky that starts to feel.

[SoftTalker]

Neuroplasticity wanes as people become adults. I'm not saying it's impossible, but changing ingrained patterns of thinking as an adult can be difficult or require deliberate effort and perhaps help of trained therapists.

[msabalau]

In the absence of any evidence, it is really unclear why anyone needs to catastrophize about generations of harms.

Is there any reason to believe that "social media existing" is a worse and more enduring harm than tens of millions of people dying in the Second World War, the trauma of the survivors, the vast destruction of infrastructure,or the start of the risk of nuclear war?

Yet the post war baby boom seems to have led a remarkably fortunate life, overall.

[somebehemoth]

> The effects of social media usage are surely reversible by stopping using it and then some retraining of the brain

This is a reasonable, but optimistic take. The effects of social media on developing brains will need to be studied to be sure the effects are reversible. Furthermore, how extensive is the damage and how long does it take to reverse? Are older people less likely to recover?

[bcrosby95]

The best thing a smoker can do is quit smoking. At any age. It's not just the long term risk, there's all sorts of short and medium term effects. I think the comparison is more apt than you're giving it credit for.

[biophysboy]

This is all true, but I think the main cost is the time wasted. The opportunity cost is enormous for humanity.

[enedil]

Why are you so sure that the effects of social media are reversible?

[SirMaster]

Neuroplasticity. Seems better than the damage caused to your lungs and cells from smoking.

I mean, do you have any evidence that the brain is irreversibly damaged by social media? I have not seen any, but I have seen evidence that there is permanent cell damage from smoking.

[InsideOutSanta]

To play devil's advocate, there are good studies linking social media use to depression.

While you can somewhat mitigate the negative health effects of smoking by stopping and then making healthy decisions like doing sports and paying attention to what you eat, depression isn't something you can just stop having.

[SirMaster]

But are you saying that social media causes irreversible and permanent depression that neuroplasticity cannot ever reverse?

There is also a healthy side to social media, but not really a healthy side to smoking.

Social media helps me make and keep in touch with friends. I have not found any negatives personally. My feeds are pretty much just posts from friends. I have removed everything else by now.

[Teever]

This who conversation seems a bit simplistic and reductionist.

Sure the brain grows and changes but just pointing to 'neuroplasticity' -- a concept none of us really understand and saying 'it's all good' -- isn't that insightful because it's too one dimensional. At the end of the day we can say that this must have some permanent effect on the brain because people remember their time on social media, right? Yes, it's a mixed bag with some positives from social media but at the end of the day there's an opportunity cost for the time that they spent on social media in the form of times shared with loved ones, the formation of positive relationships in the real world, and perhaps career opportunities.

With that said the bigger issue to keep in mind is that the people who push this kind of technology on society do so knowing that it has negative consequences for individual users and society as a whole and yet they push it anyways for personal profit. And more than just pushing it they actively lobby the government to change laws or prevent regulations from being enacted that would stop them from doing so.

This is odious behaviour and it should be stopped and the people involved should face personal consequences for damaging society so casually.

[jubilanti]

You have absolutely no evidence of these claims and are just rampantly speculating based on vague knowledge. You can't just shout "neuroplasticity!"

Cite sources or delete your comment.