Nearly 40 states back surgeon general’s social media warning labels

DrJuanNadie

DrJuanNadie

www.theverge.com

Nearly 40 states back surgeon general’s social media warning labels

They’d be similar to alcohol and tobacco warnings.
www.theverge.com www.theverge.com
(I have no idea what kind of publication is "The Verge," I cite it just so you can read some info about the issue).

I found out about this on Phishfry profile post.

My opinion: It's a very bad idea that will accomplish nothing and will have negative effects. Pure politicking. Pure hyper-regulation to feign that they are doing something when they do nothing of value.

Why will it accomplish nothing? Because kids and young people (the ones that have to be protected from the horror that is social media) do NOT care about this kinds of things. Everybody knows that. It's scientifically known that their brain don't care about risks. Proof: they keep smoking!

Negative effects: Many more things than you think can be considered 'social media.' This forum itself is a social network. We will end up with another stupid warning like the one about the cookies plaguing the internet. Kids will dismiss them, and some adults will think that being part of a healthy and useful forum such as this one is otherwise bad for them and will not use it.

What to do instead?
> Moderate approach: Education, education, education. From parents and from schools.
> Radical approach: Ban social networks that harm kids and young people's mental health.
 
I completely agree that almost all general social media attracts the worst people in who no one would pay any attention to otherwise. It's the only place the worst of people can go to and spread their vile. They drag everyone down into a hell hole that causes depression, angst, anger and more.
 
DrJuanNadie said:
Why will it accomplish nothing? Because kids and young people (the ones that have to be protected from the horror that is social media) do NOT care about this kinds of things. Everybody knows that. It's scientifically known that their brain don't care about risks. Proof: they keep smoking!
Click to expand...
Raise the awareness that social media isn't something to be letting a 10-year-old have unhindered access to from a fancy iPad!

Yeah smoking is bad; who does that any more? It's bright neon disposable vapes that's all the rage! The warnings work; smoking is bad, less people do it, and stigma, but vaping isn't "as bad" and generally more-acceptable. Cigarettes have the harder health warning (cancer/etc). Vapes have a general nicotine addictive warning and sounds "less bad".

What kinds of warnings do FB, Reddit, TT, or YT do before entering their pages? Nothing. It looks like an interesting place from the front page, entices you to sign-up, then hooks ya with the algorithm. Yeah having a loud large warning on any social media website would probably make more people think twice about signing up or thinking they're ran from a place of innocence.

And alongside a loud warning: information. I have a feeling laying out social media tacts wouldn't look good to advertisers that use similar tacts though :p

Banning it won't work. Do you think FB/Meta is going to sit down and let their monetization just go away? Voat was a thing. Truth is still a thing. Other platforms spring up, and Mastodon and other federated software makes it pretty easy. Does a ban on selling cigarettes or nicotine products to under-18 children work?

I also suspect social media platforms aren't going to just accept having to put a warning on their websites to dissuade potential revenue, and imagine whoever proposes this is in for a difficult battle. "The people" will very likely side with social media over anyone else regardless of facts, so the proposer will become very unpopular. Celebrities only benefit from social media. Twitch streamers benefit. Deep-state benefits. Convincing people will be a hard-sell (probably like big tobacco with smoking laws), but I imagine with enough time of presenting the information social media won't be seen so positively.

But still, what company would be behind such an idea, or even could (besides non-profit)?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top