China and our children. AIBU to be deeply concerned?

[Concerningalgorithms]

I read this article and am so concerned. So many of our kids are on TT.

https://nypost.com/2023/02/25/china-is-hurting-us-kids-with-tiktok-but-protecting-its-own/amp/

Basically, TT and other SM have the same effect on our brain as addictive substances such as heroine. Developers know this and create highly addictive (make use of our knowledge of the reward centre in our brain), apps/platforms/games that leave us with dopamine crashes when we can’t have it. So that tantrum or meltdown when we say ‘turn screens off now’ is partly, if not mostly, to do with that, is one example.

The article above says that China use different algorithms there for TT so it is helpful for children’s development. They are peddling addictive, concentration lowering crap to children around the world, but protecting their own children.

Why are we allowing this? Why are we not protecting our children too? The science is there.

And AIBU to think that we are at risk, as a country, of raising a generation that will be less well adapted and more vulnerable in the future to a hostile take over?

Why do you need me to answer? Why so important to you? It’s not my job to solve the issue. I’m just raising my concern from MY perspective.

You were patronising so I pointed this out and added in my own patronising statement. You fired the first shot. Or do you think this is a good way to persuade someone to your way of thinking. You were rude and patronising. I’ve matched you.

One of the things you suggested was the government should do more to legislate like we do in other areas. But the rules around this are as strict - or stricter - than the areas you used as examples. The logical follow up question is going to be what should they do when they’re already stricter. What more can they do?

I’m not asking why you asked the question. I understand that. I’m asking why it matters so much to you that I answer it. Especially when I’ve been clear that I don’t have the answers. Just concern and questions.

Because you said they should legislate like they do with gambling etc. I’ve explained that they do. So are you happy now or do you think that actually your original proposal isn’t enough? And if more, what?

Why does it matter to you? You still haven’t answered. I’m not going to get into a debate around legislation as it’s not my area of expertise but we do have legislation around the health and well-being and development of the nation. We have incredibly complex legislation around data protection.

But, why does it matter to you so much whether a random person on the internet agrees with you or not?

Agrees with what? I haven’t said anything that you can disagree with? I’m asking what more you would do because I’m interested. It’s very easy to criticise an approach, less easy to come up with actual solutions. I think what you’re possibly missing is that there isn’t a solution. Because the onus is on parents.

So you are so interested in my view, even though on numerous occasions I’ve said that I don’t have the solutions, that you won’t let it lie. That’s more than just interest. I’m just a random on the internet. So why is it so important to you that you have tried so hard to make me say more in it?

I don’t believe we are doing as well as we can with this, you don’t think there is more we can do, it’s been done.

Let’s just agree to disagree. Free the bee.

True, but the parents I work with don’t understand the risks. It’s not well known. Largely because it’s a new area of science (relatively speaking). Any legislation in my mind would be around more regulation of the apps/games/SM themselves. It’s the old individual versus corporate responsibility. There are parallel issues with UPF and vaping. I don’t know the answers. I just feel we need to do more from the damage I see in clinic.

But what more? I’m not being disingenuous here. What more could they do?

As I have said. I don’t know. I’m not the expert. I just think we are not doing enough. I see the evidence.

My view is we should use neuroscience to improve our health and well-being and the development of our children to guide regulation of harmful industries, as much as they use it ensure we stay engaged and become, to varying degrees, addicted.

Monzo and Pinterest are pretty good examples.

Most won’t unless directed. It then comes down to politics.

Other than the entire history of the human race involves engaging in harmful activities. Legislating doesn’t solve it.

Monzo?

An example of using the neuroscience for helpful purposes rather than purely for profit. An example of thinking about the best thing for the end user as well as profit. I know someone who is part of the tech side for them. It’s what originally made me think that the neuroscience knowledge could be used much more for good than it currently is.

See. You are not interested in a debate. You just want a ding dong.

Are you saying that legislation around cigarette advertising has had no impact?

I’m not suggesting it will ‘solve’ it. You can’t eliminate harm and risk but you can minimise it and ensure companies are more responsible. Cigarettes have gone from being recommended by doctors to hidden away with graphic warnings of the risks on the packet, for example. It took a long time because of vested interests in making profit denying and minimising the science. We are at that stage now with tech, I think.

Sorry I’ve not understood. What is monzo doing that relates to the thread?

They had to do that with citgarettes precisely because there were decades of recommendations. The narrative had to be reversed. But as discussed earlier the legalisation around cigarettes is as strict as the legislation around phones. In addition the health risks associated with cigarettes are well evidenced and researched. That isn’t true for smart phones or social media. Also cigarettes, alcohol, all those things come with zero benefits. That isn’t true for social media or smart phones. So even though it as strict legislation wise there is only so far they can go.

That isn’t a ding dong. It’s literally a conversation.

Legilsation around cigarettes absolutely had an impact. And for the most part legilsation around cigarettes is as strict (less so in some senses) than mobile phones. There is a key difference between smoking and mobile phones though - the harm of cigarettes is well evidenced and there are no benefits. The bigger issue facing teenagers now is vaping which is massive. The major issue with social media and phones is that
we as adults use it. And enjoy the many many benefits of smart phones. Things society relies upon for everything from charging a car to managing healthcare to interacting with peers. You’re using it now. I’m using it. Kids are exposed to it from a young age. The only way, and it is the only way, to really influence the impact on young children is to hit the adults. But we cannot hit them in the way we did with things like smoking because the risk of harm isn’t the same. Social media doesn’t kill you. And, just like with smoking and other harmful vices there will always be groups you cannot influence. The same groups where the vast majority of phone skimmers exist.

It’s an example of using neuroscience to create apps that nudge people towards helpful practices.

In what way?

I agree but it’s not absolutes. It’s not the same exactly as smoking but legislation has a part to play. We legislate around data protection and each app/device etc has to adhere to that. It’s not beyond the realms of possibility that we could legislate so companies have to adhere to certain things when creating devices/apps/games. Like gambling companies are now putting functions in that mean you can set limits and putting warnings on things. It’s not beyond the realms of possibility that anything that has used neuroscience to create addictive apps/games/devices that they have to state this openly. I don’t know what the answers are though and I’m sure you will delight in telling me dreadfully wrong I am.

There is no point in going into detail as it’s irrelevant. If you don’t know then switch to Pinterest. Good example of writing in features that are considerate of the wellbeing of the user.