How Weak Evidence Is Fueling a National Push to Ban Social Media for Youth
hn_acker
22 points
8 comments
May 13, 2026
Related Discussions
Found 5 related stories in 556.8ms across 14,015 title embeddings via pgvector HNSW
- Social media bans for teenagers lack evidence and pose risks, scientists say giuliomagnifico · 43 pts · May 29, 2026 · 72% similar
- Majority of Americans Support Banning Social Media for Kids Under 16 karakoram · 16 pts · July 06, 2026 · 63% similar
- The UK's new under-16 social media ban will cause more harm than it prevents Brajeshwar · 59 pts · June 19, 2026 · 62% similar
- Growing list of countries move to ban social media for children geox · 19 pts · July 12, 2026 · 60% similar
- The UK's Teen Social Media Ban Is Political Theater, Not Child Safety Policy hn_acker · 116 pts · June 16, 2026 · 59% similar
Discussion Highlights (5 comments)
hn_acker
The full title is: > The Science is Not Settled: How Weak Evidence is Fueling a National Push to Ban Social Media for Youth
remarkEon
I don’t need 1000 studies from Harvard or MIT to confirm what I can see with my own eyes and hear with my own ears. Part of the reason we are in this mess at all is an over reliance on statistical modeling and peer reviewed literature etc and so on when if you are of a certain age you can literally just notice how things are different. I would vote to ban it, and a bunch of people with fancy regression analyses are not going to change my mind. With subjects like this, the outcome variables are things like “suicide” and “eating disorders”. So, what, we have to wait until R² > .95 to be convinced of the utility regulation? Seems the least-harm approach is actually to index on the side of regulation first instead of pretending the null is true in this case.
kelseyfrog
If the evidence were undeniable would that be cause to ban social media for the youth? We cannot simply ban things if they are bad, however weak or strong the evidence is. We have to examine access on the basis of rights alone. If the right exists then it could kill all kids and it would still be the correct decision to allow it.
tamimio
The children cause is obviously a justification to push for digital ID, digital ID will be the ultimate tool to use to further domesticate the public and control them. It was pushed during covid lockdowns and when that didn’t work, other justifications are waiting, sometimes children, sometimes illegal immigrants, depending on your audience. But the children one is very effective, because there’s this overprotective hysteria about them, especially when most aren’t technically children (a 16yo isn’t a child for example), and this is very new concept that had serious impact on both the young ones or their parents, back in the day kids used to play outside, used to live their lives and learn, now in the Karen-led society kids can’t be even left alone in the house, or having your 3 kids using the public transportation to go to school ( https://globalnews.ca/news/7145065/vancouver-dad-appeal-kids... ), it destroyed kids independence or learning how to be one, while adding extra overhead on parents that eventually they stopped having kids entirely.
a34729t
If i was dictator i would straight up ban social media for everybody. I would even consider disabling the internet and tv on the weekends and forcing people to have a mandatory vice, subsidized by the government.