Post

it's insidious. she raises good questions about the end goal of companies like facebook in funding both sides of this issue, but "social media is fine, and algorithms aren't harmful" doesn't need to be true for "they want to dismantle section 230 and regulate competition out of existence" to be true

She’s a professional contrarian.

No one should be listening to Taylor at this point and the guardian should know better. She's simply a grifter and a bully to other disabled people

2-3 years feels generous!

Vampire says drinking blood is totally natural.

It sounds to me like she is in denial of her own addiction

Obvious bias and bad faith aside, she's not an expert in addiction or social media to the best of my knowledge. Her opinion on whether it's addictive is irrelevant, regardless of how she chooses to frame it, because she's a layperson. We're all equally qualified to opine on this topic.

that is to say, i hope there's a happy medium between endlessly rehashing semantic debates to avoid acknowledging genuine harms and ceding to a framing that the people in power have historically used to crack down on vulnerable populations under the guise of fighting addiction

Isn‘t Taylore Lorenz one of the most online-addicted people out there? Who uses a half dozen AI programs to orgabize their media consumption. Like using methdone to kick a heroin havit but also still using heron.

the thing about taylor lorenz is that even if you try to give her the benefit of the doubt on one issue and think people are just dog piling, she'll say something so colossally stupid on another topic you're familiar with that you can't just help but be happy the wolves are feasting on her

*person that is addicted to being yelled at on social media*: "Social media is not addictive"

Im not sure it’s deliberate I think she is unwell

Is beer addictive? We talked to our beer correspondant who said no

I’m thinking it was more of a Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde situation

im not sure that is fair, but she is definitely an ideologue when it comes to her view of social media

Interesting

What the fuck is her deal anyway? A while back she was extolling virtues of AI and claiming that "you can't criticize something you don't understand," which is about as dumb as it gets.

Her’s is a take as good as “Flock is good for a community”, “I’d like one data center next to my child’s preschool, please”, and “I’m making dinner using RFK Jr’s cookbook”.

Both ICD and DSM fail to provide frameworks to define these diagnostically. Despite this, research shows continued engagement in social media/smartphones for prolonged periods causes a dissociative state by suppressing the Default Mode Network, which can cause lasting neurological dampening.

If that's what social media is then why do most of my friends ignore me? 🥺

Who refers to talking to their friends as "media"?

No, Taylor is right and you are wrong. The problem with social media isn't the media itself, it's the Capitalist assholes who are manipulating the algorithm. Outlaw billionaires seize the means of communication and the problems you are worried about go away.

It was that for a brief period about 20 years ago

The idea that a grown adult can consider socializing and social media to be largely the same thing is so disheartening.

Notice that the first thing that she does is try to reframe it as a discussion on “media addiction” not “social media addiction”. Gives away the entire game.

denial of basic reality is her strong suit

Keep in mind the slot machine style elements, getting likes and notifications. The lack of real connection. Algorithm guided experiences meaning people are generally posting on influencer threads. Resting in parasocial relationships.

*guy on his 5th drink before he finishes breakfast* having a little treat is not an addiction!

This doesn't surprise me considering she's also addicted to genAI tools.

She didn't say there weren't negative outcomes, she said social media addiction wasn't real. And it's not. Also correlation does not equal causation, and heavy social media use is a symptom of deeper root issues and an attempt to cope with those issues.

Everything you're saying is true, but does is not necessarily addiction.

I was one of the authors on a study on teen social media and mental health and Taylor is full of shit (and knows it but also knows where the $$$ is) if anyone wants to see what the research and science says here is a link to our report: joanganzcooneycenter.org/2020/08/03/i...

I feel like discord servers bridge this gap a little bit. Talking to like-minded people and sharing mutual interests and stupid never-ending bits without it being guided by an algo

Oxycontin is useful in small amounts...

But doesn't cancel out the effect when you put that together with the data we have on, say, teen body dysmorphia, there is more than enough evidence to say this is a problem on its own share.google/e3xCPykyChlj...

Let's just add that an uncertainty interval in ORs from basically 1 (no difference) to 5 (yuge) is...well, a LOT of uncertainty. You usually see this with pronounced effects at the extreme ends of the distribution. And that's the case here as well. The bottom line in this is:

And this is the real talk. Yes, useful for some isolated humans (good evidence it helps people 65 and plus stave off some of the impacts of gradual decline in social engagement on cognitive health), but almost entirely ruined by advertising and data harvesting priorities.

Weird how teenagers spending all day on platforms where they’re fed the worst, most ego-damaging content see a rise in suicidal thoughts. I’m sure there’s no connection

Just to add, but just because people doesn't have a condition or are killing themselves doesn't mean that they are necessarily OK. That's a low bar. Test scores have been falling worldwide, there are signs that personalities have been changing too

it doesn't have to be either/or, just a relationship that social media companies are willing to exploit if it profits them, to the detriment of their users health and sometimes literal existence regulation and study is less about stopping teens, but adding stakeholders who care beyond profit

I've done ny own study, and social media is 100% addictive. If I'm not busy, I'm checking my phone every 5 minutes. It's not healthy.

Such a bitchy, know-it-all tone, too!

Highly contested and often garbage research. And she's not denying anything, she's just not having a moral panic attack.

Oh, man, Lorenz really is like this

I'm willing to bet you didn't grow up with Zuckerberg et al sticking their thumbs into your pituitary gland. As a person who did, I wish someone stopped him!

Because there is no good way to oppose it at present, it’s just wishcasting that plays into the hands of authoritarians. Opposing it in a good way would require achieving so many upstream priorities first that it’s basically pointless to discuss

No they aren't. This is no more a real thing than sex addiction.

glass houses im afraid

Wanting to play a weekly poker game with my friends is not an addiction Shooting heroin recreationally is not an addiction etc

The wheel is the same thing as a foot and to say otherwise is anti-science

This sort of blurring is extremely convenient narrative for the social media companies, and lets them skate by on their status quo ("we can't take away friends from kids!")

The two biggest users of social media have no friends, which proves your point.

She just says stuff, doesn't she..?

I think even if you disagree with Taylor about the harms of social media, it's clear that the proposed legislative "solutions" such as KOSA are not actually intended to "protect kids" but to increase digital surveillance power and increase monopoly power of tech giants.

Oh wow so now we're not friends, Robert?

yeah. that happened after i'd already stopped listening to her at all bc of the former issue, so i can't really speak to it.

You're wrong. She's an anti-intellectual grifter.

Like, you can't tell me social media isn't addictive when all of these companies have hired teams of psychologists to A/B test the shit out of increasing dopamine hits to keep people scrolling for longer. I think there's a term for that, I wonder what it is 🤔

I wholly agree with her point how the recent lawsuits/digital ID roll out will ultimately protect and benefit the social media companies, but I cannot understand what her proposed alternative is? (She never shares one!)

I guess I wouldn't be surprised if on some level she does know it but she's also gone out of her way to try to find as many people she can who agree with her to argue otherwise. I just think at this point it's not beneficial to anyone outside of going viral. bsky.app/profile/enjo...

"So it's bad to chat with your friends now" I say as I watch 8 hours of AI slop about White Genocide.

Taylor Lolrence is a grifter. So of course she has that stance.

Unfortunately I've lost a lot of respect for Lorenz recently. She has done some great work in the past, but she's really done a lot to dismantle that credibility lately.

I haven’t even seen any posts from friends in facebook in years.

Ok, but this is like the Marlboro Man doing PR for smoking.

She is on her phone 16 hours a day and says it's not a problem not an addiction. I hate her.

I haven’t used social media to ever follow my friends they don’t need to know what I’m always doing

Do you think she’s being paid to say this or is it just for the love of the game? Because of meta was gonna pay someone wouldn’t it be somebody with some prefixes or suffixes?

She doesn't remember school? Where you got sent out for talking too much in class? Or work, where you can't just chat with your friends and family because you're there to work?

I'm sure that the people spending millions of dollars to apply assorted psychological aspects to it to keep us all engaged also agree and just like setting money on fire.

Kids spending 16 hrs a day on a smartphone on various social media is not 'just wanting to message your friends'. Disgusting to deny that its happening

Lorenz-town Jake.

Its all about hate. I’ve written a proof of this.

Feels like at this point it's bad for everyone involved including her outside of virality of it all... bsky.app/profile/enjo...

Strange for her to say there is a scientific consensus that social media is not addicitive when there are significant lawsuit judgments and settlements based on expert testimony concluding the opposite

Taylor Lorenz making a bad faith argument? Where's my fainting couch!

“Communicating with friends” ended in the early 2010s. Last I used Facebook, 90% of what I saw was a bunch of clickbait garbage rather than posts by my friends and family.

"social media" can mean both algorithmic feeds from random people with tens of thousands to millions of followers as well as meaning messaging apps; i think it's not a great term. (also yes instant messaging has its harmful/addictive effects but it's not poison like fyp's are)

Saweet. I've been worried because everytime I have a bottle of Costco tequila in the house it goes away in one night, and I thought I was addicted to it. So I stopped buying it. But that was anti science. I was just being social with the tequila, you can't be addicted to that. I'm buying more!

Ah so this is who was being subtweeted (subskeeted?)

Kept her home thermostat on 85 too many years, cooked her brain 🧠

I do not come on social media to communicate with my friends. I talk with them IRL. I use social media so I appreciate my friends and family even more.

Lorenz talks about these distinctions often. Y'all know what cherry picking is, right?

(Plus there are people whose attachment to certain artists is so overwhelming that it does absolutely go towards addiction.)