What else is there to research about Social Networks? They’re bad, but people get addicted. Nothing else to it. Not sure why people should just get funding forever to constantly arrive at the same conclusion.
Just off the top of my head: 1) what specific mechanisms are used to hook people initially? 2) What specific mechanisms sustain or deepen the addiction? 3) What actual value do the provide to users? 4) Who specifically do they harm, and by how much? 5) Who uses them without harm? 6) What societal impacts, positive and negative, do they have?
And I could keep going, but you get the idea. Any one of those could be a hundred research projects.
Even if your sole goal was to regulate them out of existence, you'd need a lot more than "I think Facebook is bad". You'd at least need a solid enough definition of the problem to craft the ban in such a way that it stuck. But that's a very unlikely outcome, so most of the people working on this are looking to minimize harm while maximizing value, and that just requires a lot of detailed research. For example, compare Facebook vs Mastodon, or vs HN. Do we ban them all, because "social networks bad"?
I hate to break it to you, but spouting a little pop science jargon plus some anecdotes is not "figuring it out" for the purposes of actually fixing anything. If it were, then they "do your own research" people would have health care sorted out already.
But what policies work in regulating them? Street drugs are bad, and outright prohibition in the war on drugs has failed for many different reasons. Figuring out how to stop incentivised organized crime, street gangs is hard. Understanding how decriminalization does or doesn't work is hard. Does giving out free needles reduce harm by preventing disease or increase harm by enabling use? What economic or social policies would indirectly help? Does high housing costs drive homeless, drive addiction so we should all be YIMBYs or does abuse, lead to job loss, lead to homelessness. The truth is very complex and hard to figure how how to fix it.
Social media is a similar type of problem. You probably can't outright ban them, in democratic countries there is too much demand and there would be backlash. Even if not, underground social media would arise, as it does already in countries where it is restricted. Can you regulate it? If so, what works? Certain ages? Restrict algorithmic curation? Chang liability rules? Better educate people about the costs and benefits and good use? Enable more heavy handed censorship and content filtration? Require real names and public have strong libel laws that are enforced? What about foreign ownership or influence campaigns? Corporate advertising? Monopoly and anti-truest issues? What about standards around interoperability and federation? Should they be free, or require subscriptions?
The people behind d this policy do not think there is "Tons of stuff to figure out."
They are like many commentators here, they (think they) know it all.
It is, I hope, the last gasp of the old Thatcherist guard. "There is no such thing as society...just individuals "
They see everything through a materialistic lense, are desperate to reduce taxes (it is a fetish), and are doing incredible damage to the infrastructure of our society
Politics, sigh
The government they replaced (earnest left wing types) had some good ideas but were very centrist, paternal, and astoundingly incompetent
Came to add my input as a NZer but yeah, this sums it up.
Most annoyingly to me there is no true green party to vote for. The actual NZ green party's primary focus is on what would be labeled socialist outcomes by someone with a US perspective.
Really, if we want to make a case for addiction there is clearly an addiction to trying to claim new things as somehow addictive. It is on a dodgy basis backed mostly by sensationalism and pseudoscience that pathologizes anything which has to do with pleasure. Really they are neo-puritians wearing a mask of science.
“What else is there to research about disease? They’re bad, but people get infected.”
These are things which shape our world, it’s worth understanding them at a level which doesn’t fit on a bumper sticker – and, right-wing mythology aside, the cost is not very high. Academics are cheap and their work almost always has spin-off benefits, even if that’s just providing a place for people to learn general research skills they take on to the workplace.
