You are providing an accidental illustration of why science is under attack - because people don't like having their beliefs undermined by pesky evidence.
You should learn the difference between correlation and causation, and maybe read the summary of the study you're posting:
There is an independent association between problematic use of social media/internet and suicide attempts in young people. However, the direction of causality, if any, remains unclear. Further evaluation through longitudinal studies is needed.
Also your claim that "all evidence" points anything out is contradicted by the fact that "all evidence" is not contained within a single study, and the posted article points out that the evidence itself is in dispute.
Yeah, I'm sure surviving adolescence needs even more insecurities brought by comparing yourself to the ad-fueled fake happiness machinery that is social media, let's wait for the damage during a couple of decades so we can have conclusive data that satisfies you before we decide to do something, feels like not having enough people with terminal cancer to decide to do something about cigarettes.
That's an emotional statement, not a rational one, which kind of proves the point that what's going on here is a moral panic. As does a cursory glance at this thread. It's all heat and very little light.
The issue of having to prove things beyond any doubt before we do something is a systemic problem that science itself it's aware of about itself and have been discussed extensively in purely rational settings, how many lives would have been saved from lung cancer if academics had took more seriously the initial research about smoking?. So no I don't believe for a second you are discussing in good faith, instead it seems like you quite a clear agenda and wouldn't care much about any evidence against social media, maybe because you work at one of those corporations or just are ideologically attached to one, so in other words I believe you are the one here due an emotional response, specifically one against the backlash towards social media.
>instead it seems like you quite a clear agenda and wouldn't care much about any evidence against social media, maybe because you work at one of those corporations or just are ideologically attached to one.
And there it is. I don't agree with you so I must be a shill or a disinfo agent. No, I'm not. I just disagree with you.
No one is actually arguing that things have to be proven beyond any doubt. Nor is anyone arguing that nothing at all can or should be done about the negative effects of social media exposure or the use of ALGORITHMS. There are ways to mitigate the harms of social media that don't involve the government's monopoly on violence.
What's being argued is that the arguments being made to justify having governments regulate and ban social media (and by extension, free speech on the web) haven't been justified by the science. "something must be done before it's too late" isn't a valid argument. It's the same "but what if there's a bomb" argument used to justify normalizing torture after 9/11, and the abusive policing of the Satanic panic before that, and literally every other ratcheting up of authoritarianism in the face of a moral panic.
But since I know you aren't willing or able to approach me in good faith on this topic, I'm done now. I apologize for triggering you with wrongthink.
It's already impossible to even talk about Palestine in TikTok, the biggest social network used by teens, so if you think corporations will not willingly bend to distort free speech you are quite delusional, the ability to make up one's mind is also inversely related to how much propaganda you are exposed to, in other words to be free enough to think for yourself.
This exactly the issue. Anyone with common sense knows that social media have many negative effects, attention span, negative beliefs and ideas, addiction, etc. Just like inhaling smoke into your lungs can't be healthy right? But then comes so called scientist who say well since we thought the the universe was Euclidean but now we see it is non-Euclidean what is common sense is not common sense, there is no common sense. We need some sort of impossible proof to what was originally common sense.
> Anyone with common sense knows that social media have many negative effects, attention span, negative beliefs and ideas, addiction, etc.
This is common sense.
> Just like inhaling smoke into your lungs can't be healthy right?
You're asserting that social media is as dangerous and deadly and smoking. That isn't common sense.
> But then comes so called scientist who say well since we thought the the universe was Euclidean but now we see it is non-Euclidean what is common sense is not common sense, there is no common sense.
Now you're trying to discredit any scientist who disagrees with your premise with a ridiculous straw argument that doesn't at all describe any claim being made. This is what's called "motte and bailey." You started with an actually uncontroversial premise but then started arguing for something far more controversial, drawing the false equivalence between the two.
You keep saying "common sense" and even try to imply that "common sense" should take precedence over science, and that is exactly the issue.
Why is a risk supposed to be taken by all society instead of a controlled environment? If you really believe in science you wouldn't believe in experiments done to uncontrolled amounts of population, just like the FDA doesn't just let everyone release all possible drugs and only after that start investigating them to check which ones are the harmful ones then why you believe that is the scientific approach to social media? It makes absolutely no sense even from the scientific standpoint that you supposedly believe in.
The past making quality clothing was difficult, cutting it right, sourcing the right patterns designs materials, stitching it took care etc. In our world making quality clothing should be easy with all the technology but what we see in bad quality that you wash a few times and it is trash. It is uglier designs than in the past etc. It makes no sense. It is like a conspiracy where people don't want to sell quality clothes at a fair price. Like all companies got together and decided we will sell crap clothes at cheap prices and good clothes at extortion prices. There is zero correlation with actual costs.
A lot of people don't understand that creating a startup is not about having the best product in the market. It is about convincing people to part with their money and give it to them to control and gain power with, through having people work on what you want them to work on. Only requirement is you create a story of why they should give you money. Even if it is the dumbest idea and you will be lose all it in 3 years. If you can tell a convincing story you will still make yourself and your friends super rich.
Honestly that would be quite good, an intelligent ad remover
that scans the page and the dom for modals and removes them.
Like a classic ad blocking tool on steroids.
pretty soon we won't be reading books or emails. We have have AI filters. Maybe we won't even be reading our friends or partners message either, mostly fluff anyways?
The irony no one is talking about: AI makes quality code worse. Was bad enough already so imagine it now. I am expecting many more services to drop from 3 nines to 1 nine.
Not sure I understand the use cases. I'm guessing people want to run unsafe nodejs code. Either cloud providers like for lambdas or on personal computer for AI coding? On cloud why is this better than firecracker, firecrack can run any programming language this is just nodejs so already useless for that use case?
For personal computer, people worried about the spin up time of docker? I think that is more of a tooling issue where you spin up one instance and run multiple jobs.
What am I missing? What are actually real use cases where this would be better?
reply