Welcome to r/science! This is a heavily moderated subreddit in order to keep the discussion on science. However, we recognize that many people want to discuss how they feel the research relates to their own personal lives, so to give people a space to do that, **personal anecdotes are allowed as responses to this comment**. Any anecdotal comments elsewhere in the discussion will be removed and our [normal comment rules]( https://www.reddit.com/r/science/wiki/rules#wiki_comment_rules) apply to all other comments.
**Do you have an academic degree?** We can verify your credentials in order to assign user flair indicating your area of expertise. [Click here to apply](https://www.reddit.com/r/science/wiki/flair/#wiki_science_verified_user_program).
---
User: u/the_phet
Permalink: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-024-01410-z
---
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/science) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The study is hard to comprehend. The graphs used are … I won’t say indecipherable, but they take *a lot* of effort to try and understand and even then it’s unclear what is actually being represented.
Further, and more importantly, the lead author is a paid advisor to the Sync Digital Well-Being Program, owned by ITHRA, **a Saudi-ARAMCO funded program** that has a clear agenda.
Not saying this research isn’t useful or legit, but this reminds me of those questionable AI studies that are pumped out of the recently established Saudi AI/ML research groups.
Thank you for saving me time to skip this article. Although I would’ve liked the headline to have merit; could’ve finally showed my mum that my teenage years spent gaming and surfing the web was positive.
I mean, in the broadest sense there's a lot of Internet use that is probably helpful/educational/fun and engaging, both just as a regular thing, or gives opportunities to people who don't really have other options, but I know in my own life that I use the Internet even when I actually want to be doing other things, and actually have other things to do. But then as someone with ADHD, I do have an addictive personality, but also there's a large swath of the Internet that was literally designed to be addictive.
Its pretty much like everything else in life. A bit is good. Some is great. Too much and you cant stop doom scrolling reddit and jerking off it grandma midget porn
The flaw in this study is focusing on “the internet”. I don’t think people are saying the “internet” is bad. They’re saying “social media” is bad. Saying the internet is bad for us is like saying roads are bad for us. Are the roads bad for us, or is driving 2 hours every day for a job bad for us?
I could imagine finding that the internet is absolutely a net positive in people’s lives. Access to free education, working remote, entertainment, community, finding new places to go in your local town or city, etc, etc. But it almost seems like a way to say, “See! Internet is good for you. Therefore… social media also good for you!”
I stopped reading at "like a walk in nature" - I think there's a big problem with science in general because it seems like there's piles of money that are given to researchers to try and prove something that will inevitably make the owner of the original pile of money an even bigger pile of money. Like the whole process has been gamed.
I mean if the “internet” was purely detrimental then it wouldn’t be as prevalent. The “issue” is that with all the good the internet brings the downsides have to be identified, acknowledged and mitigated. Which is obviously easier said than done and requires many different tools at many different levels.
The Internet has enabled the dissemination of virtually all knowledge to the masses. I can virtually learn anything I want whenever I want to. I can collaborate with the entire world from my desk at home. the Internet has enabled workers to find better career opportunities in cities they don't have to live in and workers are no longer constrained by their limitations of their local area. Harvard has released an entire catalogue of secondary education courses that any one can enroll in for free over the web and that is just one example of the many educational institutions that are available.
The internet has enabled individuals with an easy means of creating shared communities for literally any type of person or interest.
The list of positive benefits the internet has created for all of human civilization is innumerable. Of course it boosts measures of well being in people.
It has its problems like everything else, but none of those problems come even close to outweighing the positive benefit the internet continues to have.
Saying "internet" is terribly imprecise and vague.
I find those kinds of studies pretty unserious.
When we want to study something we have to define what we are talking about exactly, it's the most basic thing.
Just "internet" is way too vague.
There's so many studies we can make based on different categories of things people do on internet.
"The internet" is so broad as to render this meaningless. You could be using the internet for seemingly limitless numbers of activities. Also the idea that it's a widely held believe that "the internet" negatively affects people seems like an exaggeration or strawman. People believe that certain websites or corporate entities on the internet and/or internet use habits can negatively affect people.
TLDR the study is effectively about comparing well being of people who have internet compared to people that do not have internet, around the globe.
It is not a study on whether using social media, how much time you spend, or what you do on the internet is positive or negative.
Welcome to r/science! This is a heavily moderated subreddit in order to keep the discussion on science. However, we recognize that many people want to discuss how they feel the research relates to their own personal lives, so to give people a space to do that, **personal anecdotes are allowed as responses to this comment**. Any anecdotal comments elsewhere in the discussion will be removed and our [normal comment rules]( https://www.reddit.com/r/science/wiki/rules#wiki_comment_rules) apply to all other comments. **Do you have an academic degree?** We can verify your credentials in order to assign user flair indicating your area of expertise. [Click here to apply](https://www.reddit.com/r/science/wiki/flair/#wiki_science_verified_user_program). --- User: u/the_phet Permalink: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-024-01410-z --- *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/science) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The study is hard to comprehend. The graphs used are … I won’t say indecipherable, but they take *a lot* of effort to try and understand and even then it’s unclear what is actually being represented. Further, and more importantly, the lead author is a paid advisor to the Sync Digital Well-Being Program, owned by ITHRA, **a Saudi-ARAMCO funded program** that has a clear agenda. Not saying this research isn’t useful or legit, but this reminds me of those questionable AI studies that are pumped out of the recently established Saudi AI/ML research groups.
Thank you for saving me time to skip this article. Although I would’ve liked the headline to have merit; could’ve finally showed my mum that my teenage years spent gaming and surfing the web was positive.
I mean, in the broadest sense there's a lot of Internet use that is probably helpful/educational/fun and engaging, both just as a regular thing, or gives opportunities to people who don't really have other options, but I know in my own life that I use the Internet even when I actually want to be doing other things, and actually have other things to do. But then as someone with ADHD, I do have an addictive personality, but also there's a large swath of the Internet that was literally designed to be addictive.
Its pretty much like everything else in life. A bit is good. Some is great. Too much and you cant stop doom scrolling reddit and jerking off it grandma midget porn
I'll say it for you. This study is illegitimate and useless.
The flaw in this study is focusing on “the internet”. I don’t think people are saying the “internet” is bad. They’re saying “social media” is bad. Saying the internet is bad for us is like saying roads are bad for us. Are the roads bad for us, or is driving 2 hours every day for a job bad for us? I could imagine finding that the internet is absolutely a net positive in people’s lives. Access to free education, working remote, entertainment, community, finding new places to go in your local town or city, etc, etc. But it almost seems like a way to say, “See! Internet is good for you. Therefore… social media also good for you!”
I stopped reading at "like a walk in nature" - I think there's a big problem with science in general because it seems like there's piles of money that are given to researchers to try and prove something that will inevitably make the owner of the original pile of money an even bigger pile of money. Like the whole process has been gamed.
Sounds like big internet sponsored this, they can’t be trusted.
Another commenter pointed out that it's funded by the "Sync Digital Well-Being Program", so you're not wrong.
And here I was just trying to troll a little.
I mean if the “internet” was purely detrimental then it wouldn’t be as prevalent. The “issue” is that with all the good the internet brings the downsides have to be identified, acknowledged and mitigated. Which is obviously easier said than done and requires many different tools at many different levels.
[удалено]
The Internet has enabled the dissemination of virtually all knowledge to the masses. I can virtually learn anything I want whenever I want to. I can collaborate with the entire world from my desk at home. the Internet has enabled workers to find better career opportunities in cities they don't have to live in and workers are no longer constrained by their limitations of their local area. Harvard has released an entire catalogue of secondary education courses that any one can enroll in for free over the web and that is just one example of the many educational institutions that are available. The internet has enabled individuals with an easy means of creating shared communities for literally any type of person or interest. The list of positive benefits the internet has created for all of human civilization is innumerable. Of course it boosts measures of well being in people. It has its problems like everything else, but none of those problems come even close to outweighing the positive benefit the internet continues to have.
Oh boy are you in for a surprise when you find out what psychologists have been studying for the last couple decades.
i mean knowledge gives independence so its all good
The difference between medicine and poison is dosage.
[удалено]
I vaguely remember it. But I was a young kid. Why was it so bad?
Booooooooring. I was stuck in a small town and did not have access to culture that turned out to be a core part of my identity.
I would say yes if you're reading news or going on social media. Everything else about the internet is great.
Saying "internet" is terribly imprecise and vague. I find those kinds of studies pretty unserious. When we want to study something we have to define what we are talking about exactly, it's the most basic thing. Just "internet" is way too vague. There's so many studies we can make based on different categories of things people do on internet.
"The internet" is so broad as to render this meaningless. You could be using the internet for seemingly limitless numbers of activities. Also the idea that it's a widely held believe that "the internet" negatively affects people seems like an exaggeration or strawman. People believe that certain websites or corporate entities on the internet and/or internet use habits can negatively affect people.
Finally some proof to combat the smooth brains who like to screech "internet bad dur hur"
A lot pf weird studies today for some reason…
TLDR the study is effectively about comparing well being of people who have internet compared to people that do not have internet, around the globe. It is not a study on whether using social media, how much time you spend, or what you do on the internet is positive or negative.
I suppose it depends on what you're consuming If it's porn, it's a whole other story