KINDER Messenger

Meta’s admission to using public Facebook and Instagram posts since 2007 to train its AI models raises profound ethical, legal, and operational questions. While the scraping of public data may seem permissible under broad interpretations of terms and conditions, it skirts crucial concerns about user consent, transparency, and control. The absence of an opt-out mechanism outside the EU underscores a troubling gap in privacy rights that many users worldwide might be unaware of. Legally, this issue touches on principles enshrined in GDPR, particularly the rights to data portability and the right to be forgotten. How can users effectively manage their digital footprints if their publicly shared data is used without explicit consent for AI model training? Feasibility studies on AI training should rigorously examine the long-term impact of such data collection methods on user trust and engagement. Moreover, Meta’s vague assurances about future data usage control present a risk. What guarantees do users have that this data will not be misused or exploited in ways detrimental to their privacy or autonomy? There must be robust mechanisms that balance AI advancement with stringent data protection protocols. This sets a precedent that must be questioned. Without stronger regulatory frameworks and clearer privacy controls, we risk normalizing a culture where users’ data becomes a free-for-all under the guise of innovation. What are your thoughts on the balance between AI progress and data ethics? #DataPrivacy #EthicalAI #AIRegulation #GDPR #Meta

Defenders of social media say that there is no evidence that it *causes* mental illness, and that there's only a small correlation. But in fact, experiments consistently show benefits from reducing social media use, *if* they go long enough to get past withdrawal. In part 1 of a 4-part series on causality, Zach Rausch and I examine at the only meta-analysis (a study of multiple studies/experiments) on social media and adolescent mental health available thus far, by Chris Ferguson. Looking at 27 studies together, he concludes that there is no causal link between social media and worse mental health, as the improvement in some cancels out the detriment in others. However, we looked at the 27 studies and separated them into 3 buckets: ??multi-week reduction experiments (10 studies) ??short reduction experiments (6 of these) ??exposure experiments (11 experiments) Of these very diverse kinds of studies and experiments, the first kind (multi-week reduction experiments) actually point to an improvement in wellbeing for adolescents who go without social media for two weeks or more. This disproves Ferguson’s overall thesis. We believe short reduction experiments (going without social media for one day to a week) and exposure experiments (asking adolescents to be on social media for 20 minutes and measuring their reactions) are not long enough to get adolescents through the withdrawal symptoms that any addictive activity produces (irritability, anxiety, insomnia, depression, craving). Withdrawal symptoms can last up to two weeks, thus studies/experiments of use reduction or exposure longer than two weeks are far more reliable. Part 2, 3 and 4 are upcoming — please stay tuned. #anxiousgeneration #theanxiousgeneration #teenmentalhealth #adolescentmentalhealth #socialmedia