Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.
Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, blogs, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.
7. No duplicate posts.
If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.
All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
When the economy rebounded?
For who did the economy rebound?
Re-do the study and check it against people’s disposable income levels. I’d be willing to bet the “birth bracket” moved to a higher income level thanks to inflation, housing, and food costs among others. Not the smart phone’s fault, it’s an economic problem. The study looked at poverty rates, but government defined poverty rates aren’t the same as the economic hopelessness felt by many even in the middle class.
As with all "is phone bad?" articles, is it phone or is it addictive recommendation algorithms on media sites
Fire is pretty useful until it's being used for arson
The problem is the infinite growth required to sustain capitalism.
We tried prohibition for alcohol. Didn't work.
We've had more luck using social pressure and laws short of outright prohibition for tobacco. This might work for phones, too. But, we can't even get most elementary schools to ban phones in the classroom.
Ultimately, addiction hurts the addicted, and not everyone becomes addicted, so blaming the supply is pointless.
Education and natural social pressure almost killed tobacco entirely (until big tobacco invested millions upon millions to push the "vaping" trend).
Prohibiton... of alcohol caused riots and created an underground market that enriched the Kennedys. of drugs led to mass imprisonment and made the drug crises a part of daily life. (Granted, that was largely the intent of the War on Drugs, but I digress).
No, there was not a natural progression. In the US there were major campaigns ran that started around 1999. The first efforts started in Mississippi, and I knew someone in college that worked on the campaign. It was seen as a money grab internally, they didn't care at all about anyone's health.
But then look at other countries. Smoking is just as popular as ever in China and many SE Asian countries today. Because they did not get the same propaganda machine.
Also, big tobacco hates vaping. Phillip Morris and RJ Reynolds have pushed back hard against it because it has hurt their duopoly powers
On the vape thing, I always find it funny when people conflate big tobacco and vaping industry. They're completely separate aside from Big T initially desperately trying to get it banned and now trying to get it on it.
This 100%. Phones are not the problem. Technology is not the problem. Addictive engagement algorithms are the problem.
Also if you are worried about the lower birth rate, maybe you should take a look at the fact that it's fucking unaffordable to live alone let alone support a child. Raise the minimum wage, bring all other wages up with it, then let's talk about population.
Although personally I think fewer humans is not necessarily a bad thing right now
Or the much more obvious people don't want kids and do stuff to prevent it.
eat hot chip
Remember kids, if you flunk all the hard science courses, there's always epidemiology.
I mean… if you’re not bored AND not interacting with anyone because you’re preoccupied with your phone you’re definitely going to be having less sex and less sex means fewer babies
So the smartphone was good for something afterall.
Yeah. It's not making folks infertile. If you want to have kids, you can still make the time to do that. Reducing accidental pregnancy is entirely a win in my book.
My n=1 says yes.
The certain dopamine hit from phone use tends to rival an uncertain good shag possibility. Thus, phubbing wins.
It's not about shagging rates but about birth rates. You don't have to shag all the time to have kids.
More likely people don't have kids because they want to spend more time doing fun things. Like watching Netflix.
Probably just as well.
