But after some recent reading contrasting "social media" (eg the fediverse) with "recommendation media" (ie DataFarming platforms like FB), I suspect one problem with studies in this area is a lack of clear definitions. Resulting in, for example, recommendation media being given credit for the benefits of the net in general.
"But you also have to check if there's things you're taking away when you take away [kids'] phones. Opportunities for education, for belonging, for finding information about reproductive and sexual health, right?"
#CandiceOdgers, Professor of Psychological Science and Informatics, University of California
See what the professor did there?
What people concerned about addiction mean by "social media" is "algorithmic" or "recommendation" media. Odgers conflates this with everything a phone does.
Here's a another blurring of definitional boundaries by Professor Odgers;
"When you ask people... 'is social media addictive' they believe it's true. But if you look at impairment, when you talk about addiction, it interferes with your sleep, with your ability to form friends. If you think about it from a clinical perspective of what addiction is, it's impairing in all these aspects.",
But we're not talking about clinical addiction to recommendation media. We're taking about compulsive use.
The case for recommendation media being addictive is not helped by Jim Steyer, CEO of Common Sense Media. The hectoring tone he adopts from the start is grating, and his waffly interjections offer no clarification of Odgers' blurring of definitions.
A more suspicious person might wonder if he was chosen to argue in the affirmative on the #OpenToDebate podcast, precisely for his inability to articulate how this vagueness serves the PR interests of the recommendation media industry.
What Steyer seems to be doing is sticking to a handful of key messages, and repeating these talking points in different words, regardless of what he's responding to. This is a media strategy that works for 2-5 minute interviews, or other situations where you don't have time to lay out a detailed, and 'explaining is losing'.
In a long form debate, constantly claiming 'the data is there' without ever giving examples comes across like obfuscation. It makes you sound like a press release on repeat.
"The whole narrative that young people aren't in control and have no agency over their action is simply not the case."
I've heard this line many times, deployed against criticism of advertising and PR. The implied argument is that if a technique either had total control of someone, or no affect.
Steyer's response is to aggressively restate his claim;
"It's addictive, obviously."
Again, this kind of gladiatorial approach convinces no one.
Overall, the two Professors spent the whole Open to Debate episode talking right past each other. One presenting in the style of an academic conference, the other in the style of a TV news interview, neither seeming to understand the purpose of a moderated public debate. Academics need to get much better at this if they want evidence taken seriously in #PublicPolicy.
The organisers could have helped by clearly defining "social media" for the purposes of the debate.
Add comment