# data[].attributes.body
The article was published on August 30th 2018. it has not been revised. The article is for limiting time on social media. It is from Forbes and witten by Frances Bridges. There is no spelling or grammatical errors. This article is meant to inform and persuade the reader.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Social media has indisputably changed the world, and has brought people around the world closer together. It has long been hypothesized that social media is having a negative impact on mental health and stress, but several studies over the past couple of years have recently proved it. Three billion people, approximately 40% of the world's population uses social media, especially young people, and are using it on average of 61 minutes per day, impacting a huge swath of humanity. We may be sacrificing our mental health as well as our time by overusing social media, and inflicting needless stress on ourselves. Here are a few consequences of spending too much time on social media:
Stress
In 2015 a Pew Research Center study found that social media induces more stress that it releases, especially for women. It found twitter to be especially stressful, as it increases the awareness of others' stress as well. The sress stems from the overwhelming amount of information that is consumed via social media, whether it is milestones in the lives of family, friends and acquaintances you're connected to on social media or from the news.
Mood
In a study last year, Facebook found that heavy users of the site have worse mental health, and that it can impact users' mood. "Researchers hypothesize that reading about others online might lead to negative social comparison," wrote Facebook director of research David Finsberg and research scientist Moira Burke, "and perhaps even more so than offline, since people's posts are often more curated and flattering."
Anxiety
A study published in the journal, Computers In Human Behavior, found that people who use seven or more social media platforms were more than three times as likely to suffer from anxiety systems as people who use zero to two platforms. But more research needs to be done to understand exactly how and why social media induces anxiety.
Depression
Two studies with over 700 student participants found that social media use impacted mood swings and fueled insecurities and feelings of hopelessness. There were higher levels of symptoms of depression with negative interactions on social media. In the second study, they found that having a distorted view of others' lives played a big role in depression caused by the platforms.
Sleep
A study from the University of Pittsburgh found that adults visit social media sites for an average of 61 minutes a day and visit various social media sites on average 30 times a week, and that it impacts sleep. The study found nearly 30% of young adults in the study suffered from frequent sleep disturbance. The study also found that the relationship works in reverse as well: if someone has trouble sleeping, it leads to increased social media use.

... Read More

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Why You Should Limit Your Time On Social Media

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Social media has indisputably changed the world, and has brought people around the world closer together. It has long been hypothesized that social media is having a negative impact on mental health and stress, but several studies over the past couple of years have recently proved it.

# data[].attributes.body
This article was published on 6/14/19. It has been revised. The article is against limiting social media. It is from the Washington post and written by Arthur C. Brooks. there is no errors. The article is meant to inform and persuade the reader. It is for not limiting. it shows how it can help in our day to day lives. the reason to refute it is because social media can be extremely toxic and can make you feel really bad about yourself.

# data[].attributes.body
This article was published on 4/9/15. It has been revised. this article is for limiting social media. It is from wired and written by Woodrow Hartzog. There is no errors. This article is meant to inform and persuade the reader.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Social media is always updating to give people more. More features like video and picture sharing. More freedom to use third-party apps. More capacity to store more data and make more connections. More platforms so we can use one service while loading another.

Paradoxically, the future of social media is also about providing less. Sometimes the best social media design will constrain invasive and harmful practices. If we want online social interaction to be safe and sustainable, we should embrace the limitations.

Woodrow Hartzog is an Associate Professor at Samford University's Cumberland School of Law. His research focuses on privacy and technology. He is also an Affiliate Scholar at the Center for Internet and Society at Stanford Law School.

Last week, the ephemeral media service Snapchat announced that it would render its API inaccessible to third-party applications. This is an important step for the company that promises images that will disappear within seconds. After all, it was third-party Snapchat apps that allowed people to save the hundreds of thousands of snaps that got posted online last year in an event known as "The Snappening." I previously criticized Snapchat in WIRED for blaming users for the Snappening when it knew that it was vulnerable to third-party apps and failed to ensure that only approved software could access the company's API.

Now, Snapchat's is working toward gaining back our trust. We should encourage all social media companies to be similarly vigilant and responsive.

Will Snapchat's moves constrain users? Of course. Snapchat has essentially disabled whole categories of popular software. The app stores are already riddled with complaints. Third-party apps can be a great way to use a social media---think of all the poplar third-party clients for Twitter. But Snapchat set itself apart with the promise of ephemerality. It could not pretend it was just another service. And that's a good thing.

Exceptionalism among apps should be welcomed. People are diverse. Social media should be, too. Different relationships require different tools. Friends, intimate partners, journalists, professionals, political dissidents, and others all use social media in different ways. Given the different needs within these communities, one size will not fit all.

While design is no cure-all, it can be more effective than laws, terms of service, or organizational policies because design affects every user.

This leads us to the issue of design. Software design forces choices that will ultimately shape the tone of the community and users' actions. Those design choices reflect a company's values and a software's purpose. Want to lower penalties for speech? Facilitate anonymity. Want to cut down on online harassment? Simplify abuse reporting. Want to make your users more visible? Set notoriously sticky default privacy settings to "public."

Each of these design choices leverages transaction costs to influence behavior. Design makes certain behaviors easier or more difficult and as a result, more or less likely to occur. Technological constraints thus help shape our reality, for good or ill.

Design is often overlooked by users and regulators because it is not a panacea. Structural constraints often only mitigate harmful behavior without preventing it. For example, the Snapchat ban on third-party apps will not completely prevent people from saving snaps. People can still capture images through their phone's screen-shot function or by using another camera. But without third-party apps, saving snaps becomes harder to scale because it is dispersed and, in the aggregate, labor intensive.

While design is no cure-all, it can be more effective than laws, terms of service, or organizational policies because design affects every user. People don't read the terms of use and they may not be aware of privacy laws, but every single person that uses an app must reckon with the constraints of technology.

We Should Encourage Protective Design

As social media mature, we must realize that constrains can be as useful as options.

We should pay attention when companies provide innovative design solutions to privacy problems and we should balk at designs that reflect carelessness with our personal information, reputation, and relationships.

For example, users of the social app Yik Yak are largely anonymous. Anonymity can facilitate harassment and lead to a toxic online community, but it can also foster honest discussion free from reprisal. As WIRED has noted, Yik Yak has tried to mitigate the dangers of anonymity with a number of innovative, protective design features that constrain users. Yik Yak facilitates geolocation "dead zones" for schools, features a voting function that removes posts receiving five "downvotes," and prevents full names from being posted by employing filters. When people attempt to post certain threatening language, they receive a "pump the breaks" warning that encourages user caution, reflection, and sensitivity.

While abuse may still occur on Yik Yak, the app's protective features should be lauded. it proves that there is still plenty of opportunity for Silicon Valley's trademark innovation in privacy-protective design. Yik Yak is currently testing a photo feature. The app has preemptively banned photos that contain faces, nudity, or or illegal behavior. Yik Yak might consider using facial and object recognition technology to automatically filter some of these prohibited images.

People should also keep a look out for privacy-protective features that let users help themselves and others, like Facebook's Privacy Dinosaur or YouTube's face-blurring tool. Platforms can also better protect people through design. App developers are ultimately limited by the features provided to them by a platform. Apple could make it easier for apps like Snapchat running on their iOS to disable a phone's screen-capture feature, which is already an option for enterprise software.

Technological constraints are a defining characteristic of modern social media. Twitter limits posts to 140 characters. Snapchat makes pictures visible for up to 10 seconds. Yik Yak limits who can see posts to those within a 1.5 mile radius. We are beginning to see the same principles in the design of these companies' privacy protections. Safe and sustainable online communities require a regularly recalibrated balance between choices and constraints. More is not always better. Thus companies, users, and even regulators must all recognize that in mediated environments, a person's options can be just as important as their actions.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Social Media Needs More Limitations, Not Choices

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Social media is always updating to give people more. More features like video and picture sharing. More freedom to use third-party apps. More capacity to store more data and make more connections. More platforms so we can use one service while loading another. Paradoxically, the future of social media is also about providing less.

# data[].attributes.body
This article was published on 11/12/2018. It has been revised. The article is for limiting social media. It is from huffpost and written by Lindsay Holmes. There is no errors. The article is meant to inform and persuade the reader

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
It's no secret that scrolling through endless images and announcements of engagements, vacations, new babies and job promotions can make you feel like you're not accomplishing anything. But it's pretty much impossible to log off forever and never look back.

Here's the good news: There might be a sweet spot when it comes to the amount of time you spend on social media. Keeping your use down to just 30 minutes a day can lead to better mental health outcomes, according to research being published in December in the Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology.

Researchers from the University of Pennsylvania looked at social media use among 143 undergraduate students in two separate trials. One trial occurred in the spring and the other a few months later in the fall.

The study authors monitored the participants' social media use for a week across three platforms ― Facebook, Instagram and Snapchat ― to get a baseline. Then researchers gauged the students' mental health based on seven different factors: social support, fear of missing out, loneliness, self-acceptance, self-esteem, anxiety, and depression.

Next, the authors separated the students into groups and conducted the experiment for three weeks. One group was told to keep using social media as usual; another group was tasked with limiting social media use to 10 minutes per platform a day. Researchers then looked at how the students fared in the seven categories after the experiment.

Oscar Wong via Getty Images

When study volunteers cut down their social media use to 30 minutes per day total, they experienced a "significant improvement in well-being," exhibiting reduced loneliness and depression, the authors wrote. Anxiety and FOMO decreased in both groups, which researchers said could be due to increased self-monitoring during the experiment portion of the study.

"It is a little ironic that reducing your use of social media actually makes you feel less lonely," lead study author Melissa Hunt told ScienceDaily. "Some of the existing literature on social media suggests there's an enormous amount of social comparison that happens. When you look at other people's lives, particularly on Instagram, it's easy to conclude that everyone else's life is cooler or better than yours."

"When you look at other people's lives, particularly on Instagram, it's easy to conclude that everyone else's life is cooler or better than yours."

There are a few caveats with this study: The participants only used iPhones in the experiment because the devices can track and provide objective social media app usage data. The study also only monitored students who used Instagram, Facebook and Snapchat, so it doesn't reflect experiences with other social media platforms (shoutout to anyone who goes down the negative rabbit hole known as Twitter). The study authors also don't know if these findings could be replicated for another age group.

All that aside, there is something to be said for limiting social media while still being realistic about the fact that you're never going to ditch it entirely. Research has shown that excessive Facebook use can contribute to increased depression and loneliness, and a 2014 study found that social media use can create social comparison, which can lead to lower self-esteem.

Bottom line: We can all benefit from a little break. The marriage status updates, dog filters, sarcastic tweets and food porn photos will still be there when we go back.

Clarification: Language in this story has been amended to remove the age range for the undergraduate students participating in the study, which the study authors did not specify.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
This Is How Much Time You Should Spend On Social Media Per Day

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
It's no secret that scrolling through endless images and announcements of engagements, vacations, new babies and job promotions can make you feel like you're not accomplishing anything. But it's pretty much impossible to log off forever and never look back.

# data[].attributes.body
This article was published on 6/25/20. It has been revised. The article is for limiting social media. it is from IESE business school and it is written by  Carmen Arroyo Nieto AND Josep Valor. There are no errors. The article is meant to inform and persuade the reader.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
By Carmen Arroyo Nieto and Josep Valor

Amid the pandemic, the police violence, and the riots, President Trump's executive order (EO) against social media companies may have gone unnoticed. On May 28, Trump introduced a rule to limit social media platforms' editorial power after Twitter tagged some of its tweets as "potentially misleading." Although the order will likely be challenged in court, the debate over the role of tech companies in the public arena is more alive than ever.

While social media platforms are not liable for the content published in them, they are also expected to protect public discourse from fake news and harmful content. But not all choose to do so. With Twitter tagging Trump's tweets and Facebook refusing to do so, the question remains-what should media platforms do?

In 1996, the Communications Decency Act (CDA) was approved as an effort to regulate pornographic content online. Specifically, the 230 section of the CDA protected Internet services from being judged as publishers. "No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider," reads the 230 section.

Social media platforms were no longer liable for the content published in them by third parties, as they were only acting as hosts without an editorial voice. This piece of legislation allowed social media apps to flourish because they no longer feared constant legal challenges to their content. Still, the protection of section 230 has its limits. For example, platform providers must remove criminal materials from the web as well as content that violates sex trafficking laws.

But in the past four years, the 230 section has come under scrutiny at a time when social media platforms are reaching adulthood. Fake news has flooded social media sites impacting a changing political landscape-Trump's rise in the US and Brexit in the UK are prime examples of the effect of distorted news. Social media platforms started designing ways to limit the amount of fake content online while forbidding hate speech. Last year, Facebook and Instagram finally banned leading far-right extremists from their apps, such as Infowars' founder Alex Jones (read Facebook's ban on extremists is not enough to stop fake news, we need more ). However, consistent efforts were frequently lacking and left many wondering whether social media platforms should be subject to the same legislation as other publishers.

In the past month, tech companies have struggled again to categorize President Trump's recent publications. The debate arises from the definition of harmful and dangerous to society. What for some people should not be published, for some others is innocuous or perhaps funny. There is also the effect of the leverage of the author. The impact of a misleading statement or plane falsehoods from an unknown individual or a presumably respected politician is very different.

As an example of the difficulties judging, consider President Trump's statement "when the looting starts, the shooting starts"-a comment made by Miami's police chief in response to the 1967 protests, fueling state violence against mainly black demonstrators. On the one hand, Facebook decided to back off from taking action against Trump's online comments. Mark Zuckerberg's platform left it untouched, arguing that the post did not violate its policies and did not directly incite violence. In contrast, Twitter immediately t agged the tweet with a notice saying that the post glorified violence. Although the content can still be viewed, Twitter warns readers of what they are about to read.

The Facebook-Twitter debate is at the heart of section 230 of the CDA. Both tech giants sought to respect the right to express opinions on the web-and they rather not editorialize. However, freedom of speech has its limits, with the first one being inciting actions that could harm others. When a nation's president promotes state violence by arguing that the shooting is going to start, the impact could be harmful. Does the comment inspire "actions that could harm others" not only from state actors, but most importantly from voters, followers, and citizens who believe violence could be justified if there's looting? Twitter thinks so; Facebook does not. If Trump's claim recommending to drink disinfectant as a way to kill Covid-19-a statement that had to be refuted by all news outlets in the country and chlorine manufacturers-had been made through social media instead of live television, probably both platforms would have agreed that it could potentially harm hundreds of citizens who believed the president.

Twitter's move labeling the president's tweets as dangerous angered Trump, who retorted to the EO to retaliate. The order seeks to limit the 230 section of the CDA and highlight that social media platforms must be neutral. "A small handful of social media monopolies controls a vast portion of all public and private communications in the United States," . He added: "They've had unchecked power to censor, restrict, edit, shape, hide, alter, virtually any form of communication between private citizens and large public audiences."

Trump's EO comes after far-right sectors claimed that social media platforms have a liberal bias and censor their freedom of speech. That assertion is based on the idea that fake news, racial slurs, threats, or violent outcries are just "opinions" and should be respected. But they are not only "opinions." In our view and that of many others, they violate the limits of freedom of speech and endanger people's lives. As such, they should be banned from social media platforms.

Legal experts say that the executive order will be challenged as its lawful basis is doubtful. However, the debate over what freedom of speech is and what's the role of social media in protecting its users remains. At a minimum, these tech giants should ensure that the President's comments or statements do not harm users. At the same time, they should also be expected to ban fake news from the platform as misinformation is also harmful to citizens' wellbeing, even if they agree with the content politically. Trump's comments fall in that arena, and, as such, Twitter made the right move in tagging them as misleading. Freedom of speech is not absolute-neither online nor in real life.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The limits of freedom of speech on social media

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
By Carmen Arroyo Nieto and Josep Valor Amid the pandemic, the police violence, and the riots, President Trump's executive order (EO) against social media companies may have gone unnoticed. On May 28, Trump introduced a rule to limit social media platforms' editorial power after Twitter tagged some of its tweets as "potentially misleading."

# data[].attributes.body
C- Last updated February 25th 2021.
R- It is related to the topic and answers questions.
A- The author is Simplelearn. the website it is from.
A- It is correct and verifiable.
P- It is meant to inform and persuade the reader.

# data[].attributes.body
C- This video was uploaded February 26th 2019.
R- this is related to my topic and answers my questions.
A- The maker is Matt D'Avella.
A- It is correct and verifiable.
P-It is meant to inform the viewer.

# data[].attributes.body
C- This was last updated in march 19th 2019.
R- It is related and answers my questions.
A-The author is Ryan Dubras.
A- It is correct and verifiable.
P- It is meant to inform the reader.

# data[].attributes.body
C- This was Last updated February of 2017.
R-  It is related and it answers my questions.
A- It is correct and verifiable.
A- The author is not shown.
P- It is meant to inform the reader.

# data[].attributes.body
C- This was last updated on March 6th 2020.
R- This is related to my topic and answers my questions.
A-The author is Marc Apple.
A-The info is correct and verifiable.
p- this is meant to inform the reader.

# data[].attributes.body
C- This video was uploaded March 24th 2020.
R- It is related to the topic and answers my questions.
A- The author is Simon Sinek.
A- It is correct and verifiable.
P- It is meant to inform and persuade the viewer.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Why We Should Limit Access to Technology

# data[].attributes.body
C- This was last updated June 1st 2020.
R- It is related to my topic and it answers my questions.
A- The author is Dave Chaffey.
A- It is correct and verifiable.
P- It is meant to inform the reader.