zlacker

>>giulio+(OP)
I'd like to see similar study about the original gateway drug: "24-hour News Channels", which was followed by "24-hour Outrage-News Channels". Seems like we've been building toward this, the interactivity of the internet was the paradigm shift (to use a 90's term). EDIT: I realize it isn't news messing with youths' self-esteem (well, in some cases it is), but it is related in that the media is custom-made to drive engagement at all costs.

>>sbf501+qh
Engagement with broadcast TV vs with hyper-personalized apps is a specious comparison.

>>mcrad+Gj
Do you care to elaborate? Why do you say it's specious?

>>klodol+Sk
Well engagement implies a certain amount to decision making and real-time action. TV watching is pretty much passive, and I just have a hard time believing the brain is impacted similarly but such different types of activity.

>>mcrad+Pn
I don't think that qualifies as "specious" because I'm not trying to deceive anyone. You missed the part where I stated TV isn't interactive. I tried to pose a question in good faith. Did I fail? I am interested in information. Using the term "specious" incorrectly, deliberately or accidentally, is a judgement of the basis of my argument, which is actually specious.

>>sbf501+qq
Strawman argument then? I'm simply disagreeing that cable TV has a similar kind of mental health impact referred to in the article, just because there are similarities in how they operate as economic/social entities. I have no reason to believe you are trying to deceive anyone and specious is a great word :)

>>mcrad+3V1
> and specious is a great word :)

Lol, it is. :)

> Strawman argument then?

How about I rephrase, "Does 24-hour news have similar effects on viewers as this study shows social media has on kids, despite not being interactive?"

Yeah, I see your point. Apples and oranges. Still interested in that study.