14
Banning Children From Social Media--What Issues are We Missing? (lemmy.ca)
submitted 3 months ago by to c/canada@lemmy.ca
8 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

There are important distinctions politicians and people are glossing over when they talk about banning children from social media. https://open.substack.com/pub/billhulet/p/how-to-disengage-from-propaganda?r=4ot1q2&showWelcomeOnShare=true

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 3 points 3 months ago (2 children)

Banning anyone under 16" will ban like 99% of anyone from the internet and social media. 16" is notation for 16 inches in the USA, not sure what this notation means in other countries. This is a great example why properly presenting data is important.

Here is the actual study, which has more data, and better graphs.

Why are we linking to substack articles when we can link directly to the study in question?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 3 months ago (1 child)

    Is this an AI that can't understand context and details?

    There's a chart in the article in quotes saying ban social media for anyone under 16. Its a regular sentence in double quotes (a quote at both ends) and clearly does not indicate inches when you consider that the start of that line starts with a double quote. The attendance implies 'years old'.

    Plus basically everyone on earth is taller than 16 inches so almost no one would be banned based on this assertion they assumed was being made.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 3 months ago*

    Is this an AI that reads the first sentence of every comment without reading the rest, and can't understand context and details?

    This is a great example why properly presenting data is important.

    People today DON'T read, and that is why your graph/figure game has to be on point.

    Why are we linking to substack articles when we can link directly to the study in question?

    I have a stem degree. I always want to see the raw data to make my own conclusions, not be spoon fed a narrative that was written by authors with potential bias they are trying to fit to the data. Out of habit, I look at the data before reading, and I just happened to notice the error in the graph. The substack article only presents a single graph from the full study, and there is way more data there in the full study.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 0 points 3 months ago

    16" is notation for 16 inches in the USA

    That's true, but this double quote is paired with the one at the beginning of the phrase.

    This is a great example why properly presenting data is important.

    Lol what? You made a minor mistake reading a graph and now the whole article is bad for you?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent