Counter point: you've suffered trauma from how hard you had to work to support your family, and want others to duplicate the effort to normalize it.1990, and it was tough. Seven day work weeks were common. My longest stretch without a day off was 90 days, and that wasn't 90 days sitting in an air conditioned office.
"Because I've had it hard, others must too." Sigh.Counter point: you've suffered trauma from how hard you had to work to support your family, and want others to duplicate the effort to normalize it.
Y'know, instead of rich people being less rich and everyone else being paid reasonable salaries for reasonable work.
In 1990 the median house price was about 4.5x median household income. Today it is 7.5x. You say you could barely make ends meet when you got yours - now increase that housing cost by 67%. Could you have afforded it? If not, what were you doing wrong?1990, and it was tough. Seven day work weeks were common. My longest stretch without a day off was 90 days, and that wasn't 90 days sitting in an air conditioned office.
This is so picture perfect. We need to frame it.I no longer have employees, so no, I won't be raising wages. I did manage to get married, buy a home, send 4 kids to private school, and provide healthcare for my family, all without a degree and on one income. Perhaps you're doing it wrong?
I also find it odd that you see the problem as someone else's fault.
No, I don't think they should be held accountable for either of those things. I think they should be held accountable for what they were actually held accountable for, which was purposefully lying about the effects of that very addictive drug and that they were aware of widespread illegal use of it. For example Purdue didn't just not mention Oxy's addictive qualities, it actively said it was not addictive and claimed patients exhibiting addiction symptoms were basically faking it.
The whole FDA regulated drugs vs. social media thing aside is your idea that social media companies are actively and purposefully making false statements to the public about their products? What are those statements?
I would have bought a lot and built my own home. If I couldn't do that I'd have moved to a less expensive place.In 1990 the median house price was about 4.5x median household income. Today it is 7.5x. You say you could barely make ends meet when you got yours - now increase that housing cost by 67%. Could you have afforded it? If not, what were you doing wrong?
Home Price to Income Ratio - Updated Chart | Longtermtrends
Historically, an average house in the US cost around 5 times the yearly household income. The ratio in this chart divides the Case-Shiller Home Price Index by the US median annual household income.www.longtermtrends.net
I would have bought a lot and built my own home. If I couldn't do that I'd have moved to a less expensive place.
Isn't it interesting how pretty much everyone in P&N has one single response to every problem, "it's someone else's fault".
It's also interesting that I'm now the bad guy because I successfully provided for my family through vary hard work, and suggested that parents should actually be parents.
No, it's not that.It's also interesting that I'm now the bad guy because I successfully provided...
If you actually read the report linked in your article here's the very first finding:I’m not bringing the case so I’m not sure why you are expecting me to provide the proof to support their case.
But I’ll indulge you:
Zuckerberg claims social media isn’t harmful to mental health — here’s what the science says
How many more times will Zuckerberg apologize before real change is made?thehill.com
So I guess this means you’ll be changing your position now, doesn’t it?
Using social media is not inherently beneficial or harmful to young people.
I don't think that you're a bad guy here, I just think you admitting that what you did when you bought a home would not be possible for an identical person to you today. You in effect answered your own question.I would have bought a lot and built my own home. If I couldn't do that I'd have moved to a less expensive place.
Isn't it interesting how pretty much everyone in P&N has one single response to every problem, "it's someone else's fault".
It's also interesting that I'm now the bad guy because I successfully provided for my family through vary hard work, and suggested that parents should actually be parents.
If you actually read the report linked in your article here's the very first finding:
The idea that this would equate to the clear and convincing scientific evidence at issue with the Sacklers is ridiculous. Sorry.
In other words, the effects of social media likely depend on what teens can do and see online, teens preexisting strengths and or vulnerabilities and in the context of which they grow up in
If the issue is something being addictive to minors and taking up too much of their time, they may as well sue video game companies, as well as the television industry. Not to mention all the manufacturers of smart phones.
If the issue is the content of social media, I agree it's harmful, though at this stage it's probably more harmful to adults than to children. Adults, and accordingly, the political stability of all democracies. However, here there is the thorny issue of the 1A, plus section 230 which protects the social media companies from liability, which if it didn't exist, neither would social media. Or it would get worse.
There isn't really any solution that involves changing the law and certainly not one involving lawsuits. I agree with others that parents should try hard to block their kids from social media.
This lawsuit sounds like a publicity stunt for Adams. And will very likely fail.
That’s pretty disingenuous of you as even in that little snippet that you quoted it goes on to say how it does impact teens. Of course that also ignores the article I posted and the fact that the APA chief specifically said that suck cherry picked his claims.
Add to that that social media companies do indeed control what teens (everyone) see and it appears there is a case to be made that the social media companies are indeed lying about their negative impact.
This is exactly my point. I think social media is bad, I just don't think there's an appropriate legal remedy for it.If the issue is something being addictive to minors and taking up too much of their time, they may as well sue video game companies, as well as the television industry. Not to mention all the manufacturers of smart phones.
If the issue is the content of social media, I agree it's harmful, though at this stage it's probably more harmful to adults than to children. Adults, and accordingly, the political stability of all democracies. However, here there is the thorny issue of the 1A, plus section 230 which protects the social media companies from liability, which if it didn't exist, neither would social media. Or it would get worse.
There isn't really any solution that involves changing the law and certainly not one involving lawsuits. I agree with others that parents should try hard to block their kids from social media.
This lawsuit sounds like a publicity stunt for Adams. And will very likely fail.
For the most part I agree but there may be a difference between content people find addicting and purposefully making content addicting or that causes harm to children.
In the 90’s we had advocacy groups that said violence on tv/movies/video games was bad, I don’t remember there ever being actual studies they referenced though. I do know that at the very least they got game companies and media companies to add ratings to their products. Whether or not that had an impact, I have no idea but the point is that change did occur. I don’t see why such changes couldn’t happen again. Personally any change that does happen should be science based though.
They all have elements of harmful components and content, and they all in the end cost the government money is some form. This is just a substittuion for the old argument that video games cause violence in young people. When are we going to start holding people accountable for their actions and/or hold parents accountable for bad parenting, rather than placing the blame on something else? Social media isn't the problem. it's just a scape goat to avoid holding people accountable.If you can show that there is a harmful component and that it’s costing the government money or that it’s purposefully addictive then absolutely.
Do you think drug manufacturers (including tobacco) should be allowed to market and sell to kids? Why not? Parents should certainly be able to control what their kids put into their bodies right?
I agree with others that parents should try hard to block their kids from social media.
Not just parents. School.Critical thinking / dealing with (mis)information is a vital subject that needs to become a core, life long component of education.
Not to get too pedant on the definition of addiction, but...As for addicting, you really need to define exactly what you think that is when it comes to social media. Keeping people interested, giving them enjoyment, having fun, isn't an addiction, it's entertainment.
They all have elements of harmful components and content, and they all in the end cost the government money is some form. This is just a substittuion for the old argument that video games cause violence in young people. When are we going to start holding people accountable for their actions and/or hold parents accountable for bad parenting, rather than placing the blame on something else? Social media isn't the problem. it's just a scape goat to avoid holding people accountable.
As for addicting, you really need to define exactly what you think that is when it comes to social media. Keeping people interested, giving them enjoyment, having fun, isn't an addiction, it's entertainment.
I like how directly quoting the first finding of the referenced report is 'disingenuous'. lol. You mean 'tells me something I don't like', right?
If you think you're going to nail Zuck on that one and get a settlement I encourage you to advocate for it. You're going to be very sad and waste a lot of time, but it's yours to waste!
That’s pretty disingenuous of you as even in that little snippet that you quoted it goes on to say how it does impact teens. Of course that also ignores the article I posted and the fact that the APA chief specifically said that suck cherry picked his claims.
Add to that that social media companies do indeed control what teens (everyone) see and it appears there is a case to be made that the social media companies are indeed lying about their negative impact.
This is so stupid.Congrats you’ve managed to somehow not know what cherry-picking is to back up your claim, despite the fact that it was pointed out by the chief scientist from which the paper came from saying that zuck cherry-picked the data and despite the fact that in the same paragraph you quoted from it specifically says how social media can be harmful.
So you believe I dont' know how social media works, because I don't agree with you? That's very childish of you. They are the same. Social media is nothing more than intertainment and a source of information (factual and non factual), just like movies, video games, etc. (not the information side of course). They all feed off of the same basic element(s) that are engrained into society. Why do you think we have so many Call of Duty's, Battlefield, and other continuations of so many games out there, along with new games being designed constantly? Why do we have so many sequals and remakes of movies, TV shows? Why do people flock to the new star wars franchies releases or Star trek releases. Why do people fight over Star Wars and Star Trek? Why do people care about their place on the Score board in FPS games, or their K/D ratio? Why did you spend years playing Minecraft? (Oh come on, admit it, you did, and you know it). And lets not even get into World of Warcaft. Why do people have to see the latest movie release, and then fight over their movie choices, there music choices, or make fun of people because of those choice and opinions?Maybe learn how social media works before commenting on how it’s the same as video games and movies because they are not the same. That’s like saying energy drinks and heroine are similar and should be handled the same, it’s a ridiculous thing to think.