TZUTC: -0500   
   MSGID: 2124.consprcy@1:2320/105 2df1d98b   
   REPLY: 1:135/250@fidonet 698be234   
   PID: Synchronet 3.21a-Linux master/123f2d28a Jul 12 2025 GCC 12.2.0   
   TID: SBBSecho 3.28-Linux master/123f2d28a Jul 12 2025 GCC 12.2.0   
   BBSID: CAPCITY2   
   CHRS: ASCII 1   
   FORMAT: flowed   
   > Besides targeted content and advertising, what could be the basis to claim   
   tha   
   > social media is more addicting to the television that we had growing up?   
      
   There have been some psychological findings regarding "clicks/likes" and   
   dopamine that you don't get from TV.   
      
   > What about META and Youtubes claims that it is failed parenting that has lead   
   > to their childs over indulgence in their products?   
   >   - Certainly unless we were sick, there were always limmits on when and for   
   > how long we could watch TV...   
      
   I tend to agree with the companies here.  A lot of this could be avoided if   
   parents controled screen time like ours used to control TV watching, video   
   gaming, etc.  The trend with a lot of parents these days is to hand their   
   kid a phone or tablet to keep them occupied which, IMHO, is not good.   
      
   > Today, devices (Phone, tablets, computers) have sophisticated parental   
   control   
   > to limmit or block access to apps, sites, etc.  The only problem is parents   
   no   
   > have to deal with the blowback.   
      
   A lot of parents don't like to "deal" and let Junior have the phone/tablet.   
    Their fault, not the companies', although the companies know this and I   
   don't doubt use it to their advantage.   
      
   > Third, if it gets as far as damages...   How much harm do you think the two   
   > companies mentioned in the lawsuit are causing children?   
      
   I do think these companies know there are harmful aspects of their   
   products.  There have been a couple of documentary series that I am aware   
   of (one on PBS and the other on some other cable station) that tracked   
   people (high school age in many cases) and their usage habits, and that   
   documented issues with social media in general on people of all ages.   
      
   It is sort of like smoking, IMHO.  The point where they learned it was bad   
   for you came long before I was born... and that includes consumers knowing.   
    However, that didn't stop the cigarette companies from trying to hide/mask   
   these facts with their big advertising budgets long after I was born.   
      
   In that instance, yes I think the consumers were partially to blame.  I   
   also think the companies knowning what they knew and still using   
   manipulative techniques still puts blame on them also.   
      
   Mike   
      
    * SLMR 2.1a * Basic Flying Rule #1: Keep the pointy end forward.   
   --- SBBSecho 3.28-Linux   
    * Origin: Capitol City Online (1:2320/105)   
   SEEN-BY: 105/81 106/201 128/187 129/14 305 153/7715 154/110 218/700   
   SEEN-BY: 226/30 227/114 229/110 134 206 300 307 317 400 426 428 470   
   SEEN-BY: 229/664 700 705 266/512 291/111 320/219 322/757 342/200 396/45   
   SEEN-BY: 460/58 633/280 712/848 902/26 2320/0 105 304 3634/12 5075/35   
   PATH: 2320/105 229/426