SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
The Australian Broadcast Corporation reports:
Australian parents are more worried about their children using social media and technology than drugs, alcohol or smoking, according to new research.
The youth mental health support service ReachOut surveyed parents of 12 to 18-year-olds about their concerns and found that 45 per cent were worried about their children's use of social media.
Technology closely followed at 42 per cent.
In comparison, 25 per cent were worried about their children using drugs, alcohol or smoking. [...] ReachOut surveyed 890 parents in December 2017, a month before the suicide of 14-year-old Amy "Dolly" Everett put cyberbullying on the national agenda.
Mr Nicholas said parents were concerned about the anonymity of social media. "They're really concerned about the nature of bullying that may happen on social media sites and how easy it is given that this is a product that young people are likely to use every day," he said. "That the harm and particularly the psychological harm can be really significant."
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday March 13 2018, @02:08PM (9 children)
To bad the internet doesn't have that. Every "victim" is forced by nature to stay connected, and to stay on the same "channel" that the cyberbullies use. There is no escape. Even good parents can't protect their children now. If you child becomes a victim of cyberbullying, you would do just as well to shoot the kid dead, instead of waiting around for the inevitable suicide.
</sarcasm> (some people miss those tags, LMAO!)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 13 2018, @02:45PM (1 child)
Of course it has an off switch. [turnofftheinternet.com]
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Tuesday March 13 2018, @03:31PM
't's borken. Proof: I'm able to post even after pushing it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Tuesday March 13 2018, @02:55PM (5 children)
Pop the bubble of the internet being this great and magical thing, and maybe they'll learn to just use it as a tool, rather than a way of life, to be in control of it, rather than have it control them.
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Tuesday March 13 2018, @07:20PM (1 child)
First, just pretend that I clicked: [x] Post Anonymously
when posting this. I almost did post it anonymously.
That is true. Anything said by an anonymous person is unreliable. But things proudly proclaimed by an identifiable conspiracy theorist, science denier, flat earther or homeopathy practitioner are absolutely reliable.
My point: the reliability is unrelated to whether you can identify the source or not.
Can you independently verify the standard model of the atom? Can you independently verify that we've actually ever landed a spacecraft on Mars, or even the moon? Can you independently verify that vaccines do far more good than harm?
To transfer files: right-click on file, pick Copy. Unplug mouse, plug mouse into other computer. Right-click, paste.
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Wednesday March 14 2018, @01:36AM
what are you gibbering on about? now reread the bit of my post you removed from before the quoted bit.
> Can you independently verify the standard model of the atom?
I can find independent verification, yes. That's what helped it become the standard model.
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 2) by darnkitten on Wednesday March 14 2018, @02:16AM (2 children)
Except for the fact that, to those same children, everything said by an adult in authority, particularly a parent is bullshit unless they independently verify it on the internet. (from observation of a six- and a twelve-year-old in their natural habitats)
Added to that, Google (or Facebook, etc.) is more likely to serve up search results confirming or supporting said internet bullshit because they are related to what the children were viewing last. Refutation and/or information literacy don't lead to repeated hits and associated ad sales.
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Wednesday March 14 2018, @02:52AM (1 child)
However, I still maintain that a healthy dose of cynicism is a useful thing to impart. But yes, it will be used against you. This is not new, the endless loop of "but why?" is a related precursor. Maybe that's where the questioning gets killed - before the questions have evolved into their adult form?
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 2) by darnkitten on Wednesday March 14 2018, @04:24AM
And I agree completely. As a librarian, I am constantly trying to impart the tiniest bit of information literacy to my patrons (or to my Board, for that matter >:P ), and it would be better if we could teach them when their opinions haven't hardened into mental stone. Unfortunately, I'm not sure how one would teach information literacy on Sesame Street.
Certainly, I don't get to them until after the damage has been done, and I see very few parents or teachers who are capable of teaching children reasonable skepticism.
-
Also, bad information well presented is very seductive, especially to someone who has a need for some sort of exclusive knowledge no one else has, which describes both conspiracy theorists and preteens/teens, as my own teenage self could attest.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 15 2018, @08:00AM
Yeah as far as I'm concerned social media is safer than what kids were doing in previous decades. Certainly safer than getting involved/caught up in gang warfare.
There will always be a few that kill themselves due to bullying. But they'd still have the same problem without social media if not worse.