well since social media can affect attention spans negatively, as I’ve observed with myself recently, I don’t think the effects of such would translate positively into social or educational circumstances, arguably the most needed situations in a child’s life at that time, even if they are almost an adult.
sure, alcohol and drugs do still affect a child quite intensely, though I’m saying that, is social media and the endless dopamine harvesting NOT a drug? if you think about it, it extracts, makes a person want to come back for more, causing addiction, further extracting more, losing its effectiveness and making it almost impossible to quit from there.
people may say it isn’t addictive, but its just that it isn’t as noticeable since it is a society-wide phenomena which is seen as positive.
sure, alcohol and drugs do still affect a child quite intensely, though I’m saying that, is social media and the endless dopamine harvesting NOT a drug? if you think about it, it extracts, makes a person want to come back for more, causing addiction, further extracting more, losing its effectiveness and making it almost impossible to quit from there.
I don’t think you understand what drugs are or can do. They don’t all just blindly increase dopamine. They have many other effects on the mind and body that social media does not. This whole concept of dopamine detoxes and addiction = dopamine needs to die too. It’s not based on solid scientific understanding as addiction is far more complex than this and comes in multiple, separate forms. Even drugs like amphetamines that primarily interact with the dopamine system don’t always lead to addiction (ask anyone with experience of ADHD meds). Thinking dopamine is only about addiction and vice versa is like thinking electricity is only for heating and that all heating must be done using electricty.
Raising children without access to the internet is both backwards for their education and actively dangerous. The internet has allowed minors in bad situations to escape or get help multiple times. It’s also made people realise their parents or guardians are insane or abusive including those who are members of dangerous religions and cults, are homophobic, or are abusive for other reasons. School in some countries is also packed full of propaganda, and even when it isn’t they can’t always help and are sometimes a source of abuse themselves. Restricting access to information isn’t a good thing.
no, I’m not confused at all, I am meaning that the smartphone is the most accessible way to utilise social media, meaning due to its formfactor, it is the most convenient way to access it.
are you more likely to use a desktop PC using android x86 (just an example) or use a smartphone? its almost like using a smartwatch to use Photoshop, its not the same as using a desktop, you know what I mean?
If you were in any way correct, we should be banning cars and trucks from the USA, because they’re the most accessible way drugs are transported. To stop drugs, we should ban cars. Cars are making it far too easy to get that nose candy.
Yeah, no. Hardware has nothing to do with this.
(I’m not even going to start with how insane your mentioning android x86 is; like somehow that esoteric version of an OS has something to do with social media. I’m guessing you think everything uses apps, and social media doesn’t run through web pages?)
except they don’t have the same software. Phones use ARM, not x86.
(amusingly, if you had just said “Android”, you would have seemed less insane. still insane, since you could have just said ‘linux’, but less. But even saying that would still make you insane, since the operating system isn’t the social media, and isn’t what you were talking about.)
I do understand that fact, but I used it as an example since you can utilise android apps with the same or similar user experience as a smartphone, I’m more using it as an example of form factor compared to chip architecture, as the latter wouldn’t be fitting at all. Apologies for the confusion.
well since social media can affect attention spans negatively, as I’ve observed with myself recently, I don’t think the effects of such would translate positively into social or educational circumstances, arguably the most needed situations in a child’s life at that time, even if they are almost an adult.
sure, alcohol and drugs do still affect a child quite intensely, though I’m saying that, is social media and the endless dopamine harvesting NOT a drug? if you think about it, it extracts, makes a person want to come back for more, causing addiction, further extracting more, losing its effectiveness and making it almost impossible to quit from there.
people may say it isn’t addictive, but its just that it isn’t as noticeable since it is a society-wide phenomena which is seen as positive.
I don’t think you understand what drugs are or can do. They don’t all just blindly increase dopamine. They have many other effects on the mind and body that social media does not. This whole concept of dopamine detoxes and addiction = dopamine needs to die too. It’s not based on solid scientific understanding as addiction is far more complex than this and comes in multiple, separate forms. Even drugs like amphetamines that primarily interact with the dopamine system don’t always lead to addiction (ask anyone with experience of ADHD meds). Thinking dopamine is only about addiction and vice versa is like thinking electricity is only for heating and that all heating must be done using electricty.
Raising children without access to the internet is both backwards for their education and actively dangerous. The internet has allowed minors in bad situations to escape or get help multiple times. It’s also made people realise their parents or guardians are insane or abusive including those who are members of dangerous religions and cults, are homophobic, or are abusive for other reasons. School in some countries is also packed full of propaganda, and even when it isn’t they can’t always help and are sometimes a source of abuse themselves. Restricting access to information isn’t a good thing.
social media isn’t the phone’s fault.
it seems like you’ve confused hardware and software.
no, I’m not confused at all, I am meaning that the smartphone is the most accessible way to utilise social media, meaning due to its formfactor, it is the most convenient way to access it.
are you more likely to use a desktop PC using android x86 (just an example) or use a smartphone? its almost like using a smartwatch to use Photoshop, its not the same as using a desktop, you know what I mean?
You are not a clever man.
If you were in any way correct, we should be banning cars and trucks from the USA, because they’re the most accessible way drugs are transported. To stop drugs, we should ban cars. Cars are making it far too easy to get that nose candy.
Yeah, no. Hardware has nothing to do with this.
(I’m not even going to start with how insane your mentioning android x86 is; like somehow that esoteric version of an OS has something to do with social media. I’m guessing you think everything uses apps, and social media doesn’t run through web pages?)
You don’t need to run Android x86 to access a social media site on a computer. What are you talking about?
im just giving an example that has the same software, im not saying its better or that you need it.
except they don’t have the same software. Phones use ARM, not x86.
(amusingly, if you had just said “Android”, you would have seemed less insane. still insane, since you could have just said ‘linux’, but less. But even saying that would still make you insane, since the operating system isn’t the social media, and isn’t what you were talking about.)
I do understand that fact, but I used it as an example since you can utilise android apps with the same or similar user experience as a smartphone, I’m more using it as an example of form factor compared to chip architecture, as the latter wouldn’t be fitting at all. Apologies for the confusion.
you really don’t understand much of anything, do you?
keep blaming cars for drugs.