Notices by Just Another Amy (justanotheramy@aus.social), page 2

@camwilson @erici
Christ, we’re not even at the end of section 1 yet.

@camwilson @erici
This post is already more than long enough, and I’m not reading two more. He can repeat the mistake 10 or hundreds of times — doing it hundreds of times arguably makes it worse. Accumulating flawed studies doesn’t prove causation; it only reinforces the critique that he conflates correlation with causation, ignoring systemic factors and underlying variables.

@camwilson @erici
It’s almost as if we live in patriarchy. I wonder if anyone has explored how the broader culture disproportionately harms women & girls? Maybe they’ve called it something like “womanism”? “Girlinism”? “Feminism”? No, surely that’s too wacky.

Instead of acknowledging systemic gendered harm, he treats this solely as evidence of social media’s impact, ignoring decades of feminist critique that could provide a far richer context for these findings.

@camwilson @erici
When anyone makes a big noise about how they’re “protecting children”, pay close attention to what they’re protecting them *from*, and who they’re willing to throw under the bus to do it.

@erici @camwilson
I guess queer and trans youth, abuse survivors, and geographically isolated kids don’t count then. The anecdotal “evidence” presented here selectively amplifies privileged voices critical of social media while ignoring those who benefit from it. For many, social media provides vital connection, support, and advocacy — especially for those marginalised or isolated in their offline communities.

@camwilson @erici
Where, exactly, are the “group-level effects” or “collective action traps” in any of the preceding lists of evidence? This argument takes a sharp turn, introducing concepts not supported by the earlier correlation-heavy studies. If these effects are central to his claims they should have been explicitly measured or analysed in the evidence presented so far.
This feels like a sudden pivot to a new justification without adequate groundwork.

@camwilson @erici
Shockingly, this argument is a grotesque oversimplification. He dismisses Odgers' theory by claiming it can't explain the rise in anxiety and depression after 2012 — but during Obama's presidency increased access to healthcare meant more people could afford mental health services. Mental health issues only get recorded if someone sees a doctor. Affordable care = more diagnoses made = problems more visible.

@camwilson @erici
It’s the patriarchy, stupid.
The “eyewitness testimony” Meta collected reflects broader cultural dynamics disproportionately affecting girls, where systemic issues like unrealistic beauty standards, social comparison, and harassment play a major role. Blaming just Insta ignores the patriarchal and commercial pressures that shape these experiences and drive users to choose Insta over its competitors.

@camwilson @erici
The rollback of ObamaCare under Trump and the rise of austerity governments across the Anglosphere are real, material factors that shouldn’t be dismissed so lightly. These actions undermined healthcare access and social safety nets, exacerbating economic and social pressures for vulnerable pops. Such factors play a significant role in shaping adolescent mental health trends and deserve serious consideration when discussing broader systemic causes.

@camwilson @erici
A recent report compared the healthcare systems of 10 countries, including the US, Canada, the UK, Australia, and New Zealand. The U.S. spends a significantly higher % of its GDP on healthcare, yet consistently ranks lowest in health outcomes. This is largely attributed to substantial barriers in accessing affordable healthcare within the U.S. system.
https://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/fund-reports/2024/sep/mirror-mirror-2024

@camwilson @erici
Stress wouldn't be expected to "increased faster for teens in families below the poverty line" post GFC, because it wasn't a *new stressor* for them.
I do wonder sometimes if mainstream psychologists have ever met a person.
This was not just an American problem. Neither is the climate crisis. Neither is patriarchy.

@camwilson @erici
The GFC fallout created financial precarity not just for low SES families but also for middle-class households living paycheck to paycheck. Overextended families with large mortgages, car payments, and credit card debt faced intense stress when layoffs or company instability loomed. This stress spilled into their kids’ lives, affecting mental health across income levels. Ignoring this nuance oversimplifies the broader impact of economic stress.

@erici @camwilson
We’ve already gone over why he’s wrong on both counts here.
The timing in the U.S. aligns with increased healthcare access making mental health issues more visible, and the fallout from the GFC impacted financially overextended middle-class families as much as, if not more than, low SES ones.
As for the international scope, systemic issues like the climate crisis and patriarchy are global forces, not confined to any one country.

@erici @camwilson
If you click through, Twenge actually states she agrees that “It’s because children and teens have less independence.”
Yet social media provides a space where young people can exercise agency and independence— connecting with people, exploring identities, and engaging with ideas beyond their parents’ influence. Ironically, it’s this independence that adults often fear, as it challenges traditional family and community control.

@camwilson @erici
Strong "we've tried nothing and we're all out of ideas" vibes here—let's do something just for the sake of doing a thing!
This urgency is reinforced by alarmist language designed to make "doing nothing" seem untenable, even though the proposed actions are simplistic and untested.
He claims they’re harmless. But let’s take a closer look at them, shall we?

@erici @camwilson
Now comes the sales pitch, appealing to the understandable wariness of tackling long, hard battles. He reassures us: don’t worry about confronting intractable social and economic issues — just try this One Simple Trick instead!
It’s a classic move to shift focus from systemic problems to an oversimplified solution, offering a quick fix that sounds actionable but avoids the deeper, harder work of addressing root causes.

@erici @camwilson
Always ask yourself when someone claims they're "protecting children":
Which children are they protecting? From what? Who do they see as expendable?
These questions uncover not just whose needs are prioritised, but also the underlying agenda shaping their proposals and the social dynamics they aim to reinforce.
Actively opposing measures to improve healthcare and reduce poverty… well, it’s a choice.

@camwilson @erici
In "the real world", children under the age of 16 catch public transport to school. They have disabilities and neurodiversity. They have parents who work, or work multiple jobs. They use smart phones to navigate transport timetables, as accessibility aids that help them pay attention, to talk to their parents at work, to connect with lifesaving resources outside an abusive home.
"No harm"? Or "no harm to anyone who matters"?

@erici @camwilson
That is half a day of my life I won’t get back, so I do hope putting in the effort instead of being snarky counts for something.

@erici @camwilson
He relies on conflating correlation with causation, oversimplifies complex issues like economic precarity and patriarchy, and dismisses alternative explanations. He selectively amplifies anecdotal evidence and alarmist narratives while proposing simplistic solutions that ignore the needs of vulnerable children. The framing pressures action without addressing systemic root causes, favouring quick fixes over meaningful change.