SoylentNews

Aussie Parents Fear Social Media More Than Drugs, Alcohol or Smoking

posted by janrinok on Tuesday March 13 2018, @11:26AM   
from the spliffs-but-no-tweets dept.

c0lo writes:

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."

---

Original Submission

• Re:Televisions had on/off switches and channels Re:Televisions had on/off switches and channels (Score: 2) by DannyB on Tuesday March 13 2018, @07:20PM (1 child)

  by DannyB (5839) on Tuesday March 13 2018, @07:20PM (#651943) Journal

  First, just pretend that I clicked: [x] Post Anonymously
  when posting this. I almost did post it anonymously.

  Anything that is anonymous is said by someone who's not willing to put their name to what they say, and therefore is by definition unreliable.

  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.

  impart to the children the fact that everything on the internet is bullshit unless they independently verify it.

  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?

  --
  The lower I set my standards the more accomplishments I have.

  Parent

  Starting Score:	1		point
  Karma-Bonus Modifier		+1
  Total Score:		2

• Re:Televisions had on/off switches and channels (Score: 2) by FatPhil on Wednesday March 14 2018, @01:36AM

  by FatPhil (863) <reversethis-{if.fdsa} {ta} {tnelyos-cp}> on Wednesday March 14 2018, @01:36AM (#652105) Homepage

  > things proudly proclaimed by an identifiable conspiracy theorist, science denier, flat earther or homeopathy practitioner are absolutely reliable.
  
  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

  Parent