Can we remind ourselves that these platforms, games, websites- whatever form or shape - employ busloads of psychologists and every dirty trick in the book (developed by, among other things, the ad industry) to get people hooked on the product/service?
> Even the Hippocratic Oath is not as legally binding as we might want it to be.
That's largely because "do no harm" is a really fuzzy concept in a field where treatments like chemotherapy that put patients through absolute hell without any guarantee of remission or even comfort.
Other licensed professionals like professional engineers and lawyers have ethical codes with quite a bit more legal heft.
Not that the Hippocratic Oath is required everywhere or even consistently used.
> Contrary to popular belief, the Hippocratic Oath is not required by most modern medical schools, although some have adopted modern versions[1] that suit many in the profession in the 21st century.
It is legally binding, it's just implemented via professional association rather than a regulatory framework. The US government even sues the NSPE over antitrust violations because of that code of ethics.
See National Society of Professional Engineers v. United States 435 US 679 [1]
I mean, it might not be legally binding, but violating it will get you disbarred afaik. And if you are disbarred, you cannot legally practice law, so it is kinda legally binding, just not directly.
I sometimes wonder why no social networking or social media has really ever appealed to me. And conversely what makes it seemingly so appealing to others.
I mean sure I use this website, so I suppose that counts to some degree, but not very many hours per week and I use it to keep up on tech news and post occasional comments.
>I mean sure I use this website, so I suppose that counts to some degree
This is a comparison I see a lot, but I really disagree with it. The structure of this kind of website is very very different from modern social media. I will say, though, that I don't have it anymore so I'm going off of how it was in 2018. I'd imagine that the constant feedback mechanisms have gotten worse, and continue to play off of people's anxiety and sense of self in the worst possible ways.
Social media is appealing because it provides a means of networking, communication and entertainment that allows people to share and consume media in multiple forms. For instance my mother uses Facebook to keep up with her COPD support group and chat with relatives. Twitter used to be a useful place to follow people in specific fields, I still follow artists and game developers there who haven't moved to Mastodon.
Asking what's appealing about social media is like asking what's appealing about telephones. Social media has taken the place of a primary communication appliance for many people. It's useful, despite its many downsides. I suspect most people don't have a deeply pathological relationship with it, either.
> Twitter used to be a useful place to follow people in specific fields, I still follow artists and game developers there who haven't moved to Mastodon.
I managed to stay on Mastodon by using bird.makeup to follow people who aren't in the Fediverse. Hopefully when BlueSky opens up someone will build a bridge between it and AP so we can follow them as well!
Oh for the love of - no. They do not. As a PhD in psychology I am completely unhireable at these places except maybe as a data scientist because I can do basic statistics. This is completely baseless conspiracy thinking. The people doing the UI and UX work at these companies maybe took a couple courses in basic intro psych and marketing.
I maintain that it's not necessarily social media on its own. It's social media enablement which is a major factor, by which I mean prevalence of devices to access those apps, and the environmental support, parenting or lack thereof (touchy subject since parents will take it personally).
Having constant exposure to social media versus occasional, sporadic/segmented access will greatly influence how body image will be perceived and affected.
Sure, so on one side you have the long-term thinking and carefulness of teenagers, on the other you have literally billions of dollars and thousands of people which careers revolve around making those teenagers as addicted as they can.
I agree that the problem is in how it's used, but you could say the same thing about heroin, predatory loans or casinos. It's not reasonable to put all the weight on personal responsibility when screwing with the process of thought is one of the most lucrative enterprises in the whole planet to begin with.
People said roughly the same things about TV, video games, and even D&D. This time may be different, but we’d need to explain what specifically about social media+mobile makes it more dangerous than those other categories. I worry about social media effects too, but another part of me wants to apply skepticism.
The article seems focused on eating disorders and other mental health problems related to one’s view of one’s body in relation to others, so I’m not sure this is something that was said before about video games and D&D, but you are right about TV.
I think the biggest difference is with TV, while a teenager would still be exposed to other teenagers with a body image that could make them feel bad about their own, it would still be within the context of fiction and at lest some kids could write it off as “those are stars” or “that’s fake”. In social medial, the new stars are influencers who otherwise seem like normal people so I feel the pressure to try and look like someone else is higher.
I know people whose marriages failed and who flunked college because of inability to pause a videogame. Also, basement guys who do nothing but play are a real thing.
As those became more addictive, they are an actual issue for actual real people.
Maybe beside the point but heroin was developed by Bayer in 1897 as a less addictive replacement for morphine.
Hoffmann created it just two weeks after aspirin, really interesting story.
One of the problems is that social media companies are incentivized to increase social media usage - whether watch time (YouTube, Facebook, TikTok), engagement (Twitter, Reddit, etc), or other metrics.
The government doesn’t have legislation on this and the Surgeon general warning is just advice at the moment - unless there’s a concerted effort like the Tobacco campaigns, this probably won’t get better.
> These trends have been documented in women and men, in the LGBTQ+ community and in people of different racial and ethnic backgrounds.
Could we perhaps say "in all groups", which is easier as "everyone".
Or list groups that are not included.
"These trends have been documented to apply to everyone, except people
who drink 4 cups of coffee when they get up in the morning"
If not, we do know how to this applies to neurodivergent people, they
are not mentioned. We dont know who it applies to people with different religions. We dont know how it applies to physically disabled people.
In short, you cannot reasonably account for every group individually.
Social Media is this weird thing where most people can grok that it's bad, and hits all of these very nefarious aspects of the human condition in all the worst possible ways. And yet, we're unable to actually do anything about it. There has to be a word for this ... for something that everyone understands is a negative influence but we all keep around for reasons that we find difficult or complex to articulate (perhaps in a language other than English?).
Yet another reminder that social media is nothing but a social contagion on our society. Do not allow your kids on social media if you care for their long-term mental health!
Social Media is a part of the world now. Just like any danger in life, kids need to be able to recognize it and have the skills to deal with it - banning them would only make them more vulnerable in the long term.
Banning is useless, as you say it's part of the world now. However, there's something to be said about delaying or reducing their use of it. Too many children are getting social media very young (8 years old) and they are constantly connected to their peers, which is harmful. They need time away (both mentally and physically) from their peers and more time with family (rather than being ON social) to be able to develop as an individual.
I gave all social media up for Lent in 2018, and then just never turned it back on. Did the formal delete request about a year after that.
I'm happier, I talk to my friends and family more, I send them pictures via DM or email (and they end up being the ones that actually matter) etc etc. I could go on but I don't think I need to.
I don't think anyone needed to. My personal theory is that this kind of paraphilia is an indirect consequence of the kind of media saturated environment we live in. I don't think that being a 'furry' is an expression of some intrinsic personal quality. It's a disorder of the modern world.
I find myself wondering “at what price”. For every oddball who found their community online, there must be 10x, 100x, 1000x as many experiencing only the dark side. There are, by definition, not that many oddballs.
It’s a funny blind spot; the tech community is often concentrated oddball, after all.
I’m not sure if it’s healthy to reinforce each and every behavior in the name of “equality”. Maybe it would be better if some things don’t have a community?
Furries have always struck me as odd, but generally wholesome. Yiff aside, they're a LARP group, not a cult of sexuality-- a social clique engaging in cosplay theatre. Where's the harm here?
Even if they were a 'cult of sexuality' - what exactly is the harm here? I'm always struck by how, even on HN, there is a current of moral busybodies who, often without understanding the topic or subculture, deem certain activities outside the scope of toleration - even those activities which do not cause harm. The justification is usually rather weak too if not backed up by some religious principles.
The sibling comment refers to "escapism" (as though this is always a bad thing, we should chuck out fantasy and most music too) and "infantile behavior" (citation needed, even if this is a thing we should not tolerate).
> Even if they were a 'cult of sexuality' - what exactly is the harm here?
Because advertising a fetish in public is considered unacceptable by most people?
Shouldn't that be obvious to them? If they go around in public consciously trying to make other people uncomfortable, do you seriously expect them to not get angry about that?
Again, I can't see those things as necessarily bad in any kind of global sense that applies to everyone, unless you claim to know what's best for everyone. Escapism might be a problem if you're neglecting your duties as a parent, for example. Infantile behavior might be a problem if you're expecting to be constantly helped in the workplace. But those are individual problems caused by underlying issues.
It's similar to gaming. You could say solo gaming reinforces escapism far more than meeting of like minded people in a furry community. But that doesn't mean gaming is bad - it's only bad to the degree that this escapism causes problems in the gamer's life.
Well, sure, but then we need a different term for modern social media. We can consider every form of chat and forum social media, going all the way back to the telephone or even postal service, but there are very important differences between that and something like Meta or Twitter regarding the purpose of the service (fostering a community v selling ads) and how it works (curating said community v increasing engagement)
Nobody needed a furry community in the 50s because being a furry isn't a thing that comes naturally as an urge that you need to repress due to a lack of social acceptance. You become a furry because you're exposed to furries or furry porn. It's social contagion that leads you to self-ostracization and possibly unhealthy behaviour.
Ah, replace furry with any sexuality and that's basically the same homophobic rhetoric repeated today. Guess HN is not immune to completely outdated views on sexuality and psychology.
Funny thing is, you're validating the ones you are calling self-ostracising by spreading misinformation and claiming harm done by their identity. Your comment and how upvoted it is are exactly the reasons why these communities seek safe platforms.
"Exposed to furries"? Come on. It's a subculture like any other, but one which (for fairly stupid reasons in my opinion) faces bullying and harassment. Where do you draw the line between a "social contagion" and a quirky subculture? Are tabletop RPGs a social contagion? What about Ham radio enthusiasts?
Some multiplayer games can be considered social networks and can develop deep relationships. It's the ones like Instagram and TikTok that try to get you addicted and incentives showing off.
You clearly get something of benefit out of this social media, otherwise you wouldn’t likely use it so consistently for so long. What makes you doubt people younger than you might get similar benefits from other social media?
