Technology

37730 readers

295 users here now

A nice place to discuss rumors, happenings, innovations, and challenges in the technology sphere. We also welcome discussions on the intersections of technology and society. If it’s technological news or discussion of technology, it probably belongs here.

Remember the overriding ethos on Beehaw: Be(e) Nice. Each user you encounter here is a person, and should be treated with kindness (even if they’re wrong, or use a Linux distro you don’t like). Personal attacks will not be tolerated.

Subcommunities on Beehaw:

This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

Study finds no “smoking gun” for mental health issues due to Internet usage (arstechnica.com)

submitted 11 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

12 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Researchers at the Oxford Internet Institute, who said their study was the largest of its kind, said they found no evidence to support “popular ideas that certain groups are more at risk” from the technology.

However, Andrew Przybylski, professor at the institute—part of the University of Oxford—said that the data necessary to establish a causal connection was “absent” without more cooperation from tech companies. If apps do harm mental health, only the companies that build them have the user data that could prove it, he said.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 7 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Christ who funds them Google? What a farce.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 11 months ago (1 children)

There should be some institution or mechanism to assess the source of funding and possible conflict of interests in every study. We know that big corps regularly fund studies in order to downplay harms they perpetrate, scuttle regulatory proposals, mislead and create confusion about their activities.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 11 months ago

The entire scientific community isn’t what people think. There is so much corruption or bias, it’s absurd. But I agree, every peer reviewed paper needs to have its top 3 sources of funding right there is the title. And we need to keyword them so every article Google or Microsoft have ever funded are right there in plain sight. And not some forgotten footnote.

Leave it to capitalism to mix everything with money and subsequently greed 👍

But then governments do this on the daily too. My first year bio prof left her job testing water samples for the government because she found things. Bad things. And they didn’t bring them findings to light, they suppressed them and told her to forget about it (applaud her for having the backbone to leave!).

Thanks for coming to my ted talk.