Social media addiction

Calendargirl

I gather that Kaley, the girl the case is about, became addicted at 6 years old (to social media).

Surely the parents should have been able to do something to stop her being on it so much? It escalated to numerous hours a day as she got older.

I’ve no idea of the circumstances, but it all seems very strange to me.

A huge pay out, of course.

That was exactly my thought too! At age 6 surely her parents were able to monitor usage in fact at that age I'm surprised she was even using social media.

There are lots of things that parents should do. They should talk and play with their children as babies, feed them a balanced and healthy diet, make sure they have plenty of exercise, have their inoculations, socialise them, teach them good manners, toilet train them before starting nursery/school, make sure they have a suitable education, read books to them, teach them to ride a bike and swim and a myriad of different things.

We all know that some parents fail to do some, or even all, these things. They don’t step up to their responsibilities and so we try to put into place means of mitigation, through parent education or with services direct the child.

The parents of Kaley were probably addicted to social media too so probably using it to keep the child occupied whilst they scrolled away themselves.

missdeke

The parents of Kaley were probably addicted to social media too so probably using it to keep the child occupied whilst they scrolled away themselves.

They shouldn’t therefore have received some huge pay out, imo

FriedGreenTomatoes2

California, Los Angeles, the Democrat woke city. Apparently god shook the tree of life and all the nuts landed there. Bonkers jury. The parents had equal responsibility and failed in their duty of care allowing this young lady to spend 16 hours a day doom scrolling. Just madness.

I believe the republicans who live in California are just as likely to be a “nuts” as the “woke” democrats.

I could say what is describe (some) republicans but I’m afraid I’d be banned forevermore!

However, FGT it’s good to see you here

Mind you, FGT I 100% agree with you re the parents, the court case, judge & jury!

SueDonim

There are lots of things that parents should do. They should talk and play with their children as babies, feed them a balanced and healthy diet, make sure they have plenty of exercise, have their inoculations, socialise them, teach them good manners, toilet train them before starting nursery/school, make sure they have a suitable education, read books to them, teach them to ride a bike and swim and a myriad of different things.

We all know that some parents fail to do some, or even all, these things. They don’t step up to their responsibilities and so we try to put into place means of mitigation, through parent education or with services direct the child.

Well these parents got a huge payout for their neglect! I know it’s not theirs but no doubt they will become the guardians of it whilst this child is still young!

Am I right in thinking the person who became addicted is now in her twenties! That means her using the phone as a child coincided with the introduction of smart phones? There just wasn't enough awareness at the time of how this addiction would continue- so without knowing too many details of the case I feel it's easy to jumpt to judgement when addiction can sometimes take years to become a serious issue.
I know I find it hard enough to stop scrolling on my phone! The algorhythms know how to get you!
I think it is about time the tech companies were held to account and although, yes the parents should have been more aware, by the time the girl was in her teens I suspect was too late.
The extent to which technology has taken over children's lives is very worrying, but as a test case maybe they will think a little more about what they are doing from now on.

It’s not a question that advertising influences. This is fact, whether it applies to someone individually or not. I don’t think anecdotes of ads not working on a specific individual negate an industry worth hundreds of billions. Ads are literally the entire economy of social media. Facebook and Google ect wouldn’t exist as we know it without them. They sell digital ad space—and subsequently your data— which is how the money is made. They cannot generate revenue without getting as many participants on their platforms as possible. This is why they do not care how they get participants. They don’t care who the participants are. They don’t care who is harmed or how because they earn too much to implement simple safety measures. Even Gransnet is only able to generate revenue because of ads.

At least in the US, youth consumption of tobacco and oversized portions decreased overtime when they stopped being targeted. No one said regulation stops all bad behaviour. Doesn’t mean it isn’t needed. I don’t think anyone is arguing parental guidance or self-discipline are less important than ethical corporate targeting either. This is common sense. An addicted 6 year old is the victim of parental neglect without question. However, it’s simply not a strong enough argument to say it’s all down to the parents to absolve social media companies of their bad behaviour. It’s weak and it didn’t work elsewhere. Meta and others have proven to show insidious intent when it comes finding ways to increase profit. Children are being failed all around. Society in general, not just parents, have a responsibility here. Society does its part in lawsuits like the ones Meta lost. Parents must be the front line protection.

Btw, the same comments I read here about it all being down to the individual are applied when I see people in the US arguing about how guns don’t kill people, people do. Sure, people choose to use legally purchased weapons and harm others while some don’t. But does that mean that Americans shouldn’t fight the gun lobby when it comes to restricting gun sales? You can replace social media with any other legal yet harmful subject and the conclusion is the same: Personal and corporate responsibility are both needed for public protection. Regulation is a normal, healthy thing for society.

FriedGreenTomatoes2

California, Los Angeles, the Democrat woke city. Apparently god shook the tree of life and all the nuts landed there. Bonkers jury. The parents had equal responsibility and failed in their duty of care allowing this young lady to spend 16 hours a day doom scrolling. Just madness.

California is far more progressive and at the forefront of much positive change in the US than the Republican-lead backwaters that produced the Kkk, who benefit financially from the slack California and NY and others pick up with their federal contributions. Slag off California and other blues all you want, but advances in tech and medicine happen far more there than in solidly Republican-led states. They have their major issues for sure , but being socially conscious—the truer meaning of the term ‘woke’ so many culturally appropriate—is not one of them. I’d rather live in California than some bigoted Trumpublican hell hole like Mississippi, Oklahoma, or Florida.

Cossy said Well these parents got a huge payout for their neglect! I know it’s not theirs but no doubt they will become the guardians of it whilst this child is still young!

No they didn’t, according to the BBC. The young woman, Kaley, was the one who sued and won the damages, not her parents. Quote from BBC. The tech giants in this case, Meta and Google, must now pay $6m (£4.5m) in damages to a young woman known as Kaley, the victim at the centre of this case. She claimed the platforms left her with body dysmorphia, depression and suicidal thoughts.

So, nothing to do with the parents.

It is full of contradictions, I fully admit, becuase of the pay out aspects,

but I do regard it as a two pronged approach - where possible, parents taking more responsibility

however, I have no doubt about this at all, curbing the power of the tech giants who refuse to take the measures they could, even if it brings in less money (which after all is the issue, forget those whines about "Freedom"),

because society is made up of both individuals and the uncaring gigantic forces that now affect our everyday lives.

SueDonim

Cossy said Well these parents got a huge payout for their neglect! I know it’s not theirs but no doubt they will become the guardians of it whilst this child is still young!

No they didn’t, according to the BBC. The young woman, Kaley, was the one who sued and won the damages, not her parents. Quote from BBC. The tech giants in this case, Meta and Google, must now pay $6m (£4.5m) in damages to a young woman known as Kaley, the victim at the centre of this case. She claimed the platforms left her with body dysmorphia, depression and suicidal thoughts.

So, nothing to do with the parents.

My apologies. I didn’t read enough of the story.

Thanks for the info.

Wyllow3

It is full of contradictions, I fully admit, becuase of the pay out aspects,

but I do regard it as a two pronged approach - where possible, parents taking more responsibility

however, I have no doubt about this at all, curbing the power of the tech giants who refuse to take the measures they could, even if it brings in less money (which after all is the issue, forget those whines about "Freedom"),

because society is made up of both individuals and the uncaring gigantic forces that now affect our everyday lives.

👏👏👏👏

Reading comments from other GNs, genuinely surprised that some find themselves “doom scrolling”.
I look at the site when I’m in the bath (sorry, probably tmi 🤣) or late at night when I’m waiting to fall asleep. That hour or two aside, barely look at the phone unless it pings with a message.

Wonder what it is that seems to make some people more susceptible than others?

I don't know about doom scrolling, but any connection for me where water and devices get too close together is a bit of a doom matter.

We are already high levels of myopia is the young - they do not use their long distance vision enough.

My DGS is addicted to hours of screen time, and I am sure that is has caused a form of ADHD as he watches clip after clip.

After 40 years in IT, here I am replying after midnight. If I cannot put it down, how do I expect a young mind to be able to?

Wyllow3

I don't know about doom scrolling, but any connection for me where water and devices get too close together is a bit of a doom matter.

Had the same phone for donkey’s years, seems to be ok.

I am afraid that that kind of pay out will be an absolute disaster for her. But I am sure they think they are being kind.

We are all addicted to our phones and I am only typing this to avoid doing something useful.

Boz

We are all addicted to our phones and I am only typing this to avoid doing something useful.

No we’re not.

I'm addicted or I would just say like a lot, chatting online. I always carry my mobile out and about, but it's only in use them if necessary.

I definitely prefer to be online than housework....