2014年一項針對歐洲7個國家的調(diào)查顯示，擁有智能手機的人中，46%為年齡在9至16歲之間的年輕人。
本文原文以Smartphones are bad for some teens, not all為標(biāo)題發(fā)布在2018年2月21日的《自然》評論上（英文版見后文）；作者，加州大學(xué)爾灣分校心理學(xué)和社會行為學(xué)教授Candice Odgers。寫道：現(xiàn)實生活中不如意的年輕人可能會更容易在網(wǎng)上受到負(fù)面影響。
去年，我接到一個憤怒的父親打來的電話。他剛剛在報紙上讀到我的研究，里面稱一些青少年可能會從上網(wǎng)中受益。他大發(fā)雷霆，說他的孩子們以前積極參與家庭和教會活動，在吃飯時也會說個不停。而現(xiàn)在，隨著青少年不斷沉迷于手機，他們的已經(jīng)迷失在了網(wǎng)絡(luò)生活中。
并非只有這位父親持此意見。越來越多的人聲稱智能手機已經(jīng)毀掉了一代人，又或者它們可能會讓青少年感到孤獨和抑郁。
經(jīng)過長達10年的對青少年心理健康與智能手機使用情況的跟蹤調(diào)查后，我認(rèn)為這一觀點具有誤導(dǎo)性。大多數(shù)年齡在11到19歲之間的年輕人（不同研究的年齡區(qū)間各異）在這個數(shù)碼時代表現(xiàn)得很好。2016年，美國有84%的學(xué)生順利從高中畢業(yè)。在過去的20年里，青少年中的懷孕、暴力、酗酒和吸煙等問題的發(fā)生均有所減少。其他國家也有類似的趨勢。
更多更好的數(shù)據(jù)至關(guān)重要。迄今為止，人們對數(shù)碼設(shè)備會導(dǎo)致一代人的衰落這一擔(dān)心并沒有得到研究結(jié)果的支持。然而，研究卻表明，網(wǎng)上活動或許反映出、甚至惡化現(xiàn)實中已經(jīng)存在的缺陷。
智能手機一代
在美國，人們很小就開始使用手機。2015年，我和同事們調(diào)查了北卡羅來納州公立學(xué)校的2100名兒童。在這一可能代表整個美國青少年的樣本中，11歲孩子中的手機擁有比例為48%，而在14歲的孩子中高達85%（未發(fā)表數(shù)據(jù)；詳見go.nature.com/2eeffku）。
另一項同年進行的調(diào)查顯示，13至18歲的美國青少年平均每天花在屏幕媒體（從看電視或在線視頻到在線閱讀以及使用社交媒體）上的時間超過6.5小時，其中移動設(shè)備占了近一半時間。在其他地區(qū)的手機擁有和使用率也很高：2014年，一項針對歐洲7個國家的9至16歲青少年的調(diào)查顯示，有46%的人擁有智能手機。
隨著數(shù)字技術(shù)使用的增加，年輕人從童年走向成年所需時間變得更長。自上世紀(jì)60年代以來，年輕人一直在推遲社會角色的轉(zhuǎn)變，比如婚姻、生育和全職工作。
也有一些證據(jù)表明青少年的心理健康問題有所增加。在2004年至2014年間，12至17歲的美國女孩中報告經(jīng)歷抑郁癥發(fā)作的比例增加了4%以上，達到17.3%。2014年，男孩中出現(xiàn)抑郁情況的比例為5.7%，自2004年以來上升了1.2%。從1999年起，美國的自殺率在每一個年齡組中都有所上升，青春期少女中增幅最大。其他國家也發(fā)現(xiàn)了類似的趨勢。
眾多評論人士認(rèn)為，年輕人對數(shù)字技術(shù)的使用的快速增長，正在加速甚至推動這些行為轉(zhuǎn)變和心理健康趨勢。事實上，就在上個月，投資者剛剛發(fā)布了一封公開信，要求科技巨頭蘋果公司對他們所看到的“越來越多的證據(jù)”作出回應(yīng)，這些證據(jù)詳細(xì)列出了數(shù)碼設(shè)備和社交媒體對年輕人的負(fù)面影響。
有利有弊
數(shù)據(jù)說明了什么？
在20世紀(jì)90年代和21世紀(jì)初，美國的調(diào)查顯示，花更多時間上網(wǎng)的青少年更有可能報告出現(xiàn)抑郁和焦慮癥狀。但在當(dāng)時，只有一小部分青少年能上網(wǎng)（在1995年，只有14%的美國成年人能上網(wǎng)），且他們大多數(shù)是在玩游戲或與聊天室里的陌生人聊天。而今天，超過90%的美國青少年每天都在上網(wǎng)，但他們大部分時候是在與他們有共同生活的朋友和家人交流。
最近幾項探討人們的心理健康和他們使用數(shù)碼技術(shù)之間的相關(guān)性研究主要涉及大學(xué)生，而非青少年。這些研究得到的是一個混合了積極、消極和無效的結(jié)果，且所有結(jié)果的影響都是微不足道的。迄今為止，一項最大規(guī)模的研究是2017年對超過12萬名英國青少年進行的研究。研究發(fā)現(xiàn)，心理健康和“適度”使用數(shù)碼技術(shù)之間沒有關(guān)聯(lián)，同時報告了 “使用度高”的人受到了可測量但“很小”的負(fù)面影響（使用度水平是根據(jù)實證推導(dǎo)的拐點來定義的）。
與此同時，在過去的十年里，越來越多的研究表明，上網(wǎng)實際上可以讓年輕人受益。
從2002年到2017年發(fā)表的36項研究表明，青少年會使用數(shù)字交流的方式分享親密感、表達情感、安排見面和活動等以增進感情。2009年對1300多名兒童和青少年的一項縱向研究還顯示，具有高質(zhì)量社會關(guān)系（根據(jù)監(jiān)護人對孩子與朋友、監(jiān)護人、兄弟姐妹和教師之間關(guān)系的描述定義）的6至12歲兒童會在其長成12至18歲的青少年時更頻繁地使用電子郵件、聊天或即時消息。其在青少年時期的線下友誼也更牢固，這是根據(jù)他們自己的描述來確定的。
一些實驗對象在實驗室里玩電腦游戲的實驗性研究表明虛擬交流（例如給他們以前不認(rèn)識的同伴發(fā)短信）可以幫助青少年在遭到社會拒絕（例如在某一游戲中被多個玩家排擠）之后重返社會。
然而，數(shù)據(jù)也表明，來自不同社會經(jīng)濟背景的年輕人在網(wǎng)絡(luò)上有著不同的經(jīng)歷。
來自年收入不到3.5萬美元的美國家庭，年齡在13歲到18歲之間的青少年，平均每天花大概4個小時看電視和在線視頻。這大約是那些來自家庭年收入超過10萬美元的青少年的兩倍。總的來說，低收入青少年每天花在屏幕上的時間要多3個小時左右。
2014年，對來自歐洲7個國家的3500名年齡在9至16歲的兒童的研究表明，富裕家庭的父母更有可能“積極介入”孩子的網(wǎng)上活動。他們可能是通過交談來建議孩子如何更安全地使用互聯(lián)網(wǎng)，再或者參與其中，和孩子一起玩電腦游戲、觀看視頻或者發(fā)帖。
一般來說，那些在現(xiàn)實生活中遇到更多逆境的青少年，似乎最有可能受到使用智能手機和其他數(shù)字設(shè)備帶來的負(fù)面影響。
在我們2015年北卡羅來納州的調(diào)查中，來自低收入家庭的青少年比相對富裕的同齡人更有可能報道他們在社交媒體上的經(jīng)歷導(dǎo)致了線下的肢體沖突、當(dāng)面沖撞，或者在學(xué)校遇到麻煩（參見“社交媒體的溢出效應(yīng)”）。有過受害經(jīng)歷的青少年更有可能在網(wǎng)上受到霸凌、誘惑和攻擊。對那些有行為問題的人（比如課堂上注意力難以集中，或者有打架傾向）而言，更頻繁地使用數(shù)字技術(shù)會使他們在日常生活中遇到更多問題。
來源：C. Odgers et al., Unpublished data
過去10年進行的其他研究表明，線下生活不順利的青少年更有可能出現(xiàn)負(fù)面的在線體驗。例如，本來就易受攻擊的年輕人更有可能在社交媒體上收到負(fù)面的反饋，他們難以找到正確的互聯(lián)網(wǎng)使用方式，花更多的時間在網(wǎng)上“潛伏”——即被動地觀察他人，而不是主動地參與其中。
“數(shù)字鴻溝”傳統(tǒng)上指的是對新技術(shù)的可獲取程度的差異。在許多國家，這種差距仍然存在，但都在縮小。在2015年的調(diào)查中，來自弱勢家庭的10至15歲青少年中有92%能夠使用互聯(lián)網(wǎng)，而同齡的其他青少年中網(wǎng)絡(luò)使用比例為97%。弱勢家庭擁有移動設(shè)備所占比例為65%，其余則為69%。
我們現(xiàn)在所看到的可能是一種新的數(shù)字鴻溝：在線體驗差異會放大本來脆弱的青少年所面臨的風(fēng)險。
探索不平等
一些人可能會反駁說，數(shù)字技術(shù)只是為現(xiàn)有問題的表達提供了一種新的媒介。他們也許是對的。但是，考慮到上述現(xiàn)象的出現(xiàn)，徹查青少年的在線體驗如何以及是否會惡化現(xiàn)有的不平等現(xiàn)象至關(guān)重要。我們還需寄希望于以證據(jù)為基礎(chǔ)的方式，為所有年輕人提供積極的在線體驗。
這便需要在設(shè)計嚴(yán)謹(jǐn)?shù)膶嶒炑芯康榷鄠€方面取得進展。這很難辦到，因為想要找到對照組——不上網(wǎng)的或者愿意將手機交出來的青少年實在很難。
一種可能性是研究人員重點調(diào)查正處于過渡時期的青少年，這些孩子剛剛開始常規(guī)使用移動設(shè)備和社交媒體。的確，在進行針對年輕人行為和心理健康的研究和隨機對照試驗時，移動設(shè)備相當(dāng)有用。
心理狀態(tài)可以直接從報告的信息中獲得，也可以間接地從可穿戴設(shè)備收集的睡眠模式數(shù)據(jù)、Facebook或Twitter上的帖子、甚至是他們的短信中獲得。
例如，計算機科學(xué)家根據(jù)社交媒體上的帖子和互動模式預(yù)測到抑郁癥的發(fā)作。此外，移動技術(shù)可用于提供及時的干預(yù)和支持。2016年的一項元分析發(fā)現(xiàn)，通過移動設(shè)備提供的計算機輔助認(rèn)知行為療法等短暫干預(yù)，人們的心理健康狀況得到改善，且抑郁癥和焦慮癥癥狀緩解。
實驗的嚴(yán)密性需要普遍的研究方法，如用于評估不同環(huán)境下網(wǎng)絡(luò)使用情況的標(biāo)準(zhǔn)化調(diào)查問卷。全球兒童在線研究工具包（Global Kids Online research toolkit）就是一個很好的例子。但同時調(diào)查人員應(yīng)該能做到不斷更新這些方法，以捕捉青少年不斷變化的生活環(huán)境和數(shù)字技術(shù)使用習(xí)慣。
已獲得的數(shù)據(jù)也表明改變的必要性。神經(jīng)學(xué)家、心理學(xué)家和兒科醫(yī)生需要與那些從事人機交互的研究人員合作。2015年，在德國馬爾巴赫城堡，雅各布斯基金會舉辦的兒童與青少年研究與干預(yù)技術(shù)會議，就主要集中于構(gòu)建這類跨學(xué)科合作伙伴關(guān)系。我們還需要更多這樣的機會。
在建立一個更有力的證據(jù)基礎(chǔ)之前，那些關(guān)心青少年健康發(fā)展的人必須不斷質(zhì)疑關(guān)于下一代的主流觀點。這些觀點有可能讓父母、教育工作者和其他人對新技術(shù)為這個年齡組帶來的潛在好處視而不見，甚至更糟的是：真正威脅精神健康和導(dǎo)致其他問題的決定因素卻被忽視。
英國《衛(wèi)報》在2017年發(fā)表了一份由80多名科學(xué)家（包括我自己在內(nèi)）簽署的請愿書，呼吁出臺基于證據(jù)而非恐懼的政策。它在媒體上對一邊倒的對話提出了反對意見，更重要的是建立了教育工作者、衛(wèi)生專業(yè)人員、家長、研究人員和青少年之間的信息交流和循證對話。
熟悉的領(lǐng)域
因為在線問題在很大程度上可以由年輕人的線下缺陷來預(yù)測，我們現(xiàn)有的關(guān)于促進兒童健康發(fā)展的知識對數(shù)字領(lǐng)域同樣適用。例如，維護開放積極的父母-子女關(guān)系，父母參與到孩子的活動中，避免過度的限制或強制性的監(jiān)控等策略，都將有助于青少年的成長，讓他們在網(wǎng)絡(luò)上也保持安全。
主要的專業(yè)組織，如歐洲青少年研究協(xié)會、世界經(jīng)濟論壇和兒童發(fā)展研究協(xié)會，都可以在這方面發(fā)揮重要的領(lǐng)導(dǎo)作用。最后，地方政府、科技公司和教育機構(gòu)之間的合作是確保年輕人（包括最弱勢群體）在網(wǎng)絡(luò)上擁有平等機會的關(guān)鍵。
社交媒體網(wǎng)站向監(jiān)護人提供信息，以此來為青少年用戶提供基本的保護。但是大多數(shù)安全協(xié)議都依賴于父母的倡導(dǎo)和積極調(diào)解以及對網(wǎng)絡(luò)活動的監(jiān)管，這可能會使處于弱勢的年輕人得不到保護。
2017年12月，F(xiàn)acebook承諾提供100萬美元的研究基金，以幫助更好地理解“媒體技術(shù)、青年發(fā)展和幸福之間的關(guān)系”。這些資金的最佳用途可能便是為保護弱勢青少年研發(fā)工具、篩選算法和外展策略。例如，可以利用機器學(xué)習(xí)和臨床專業(yè)知識來構(gòu)建預(yù)測當(dāng)前和未來心理健康問題的分類器，這樣的篩選算法可以與即時干預(yù)措施一起使用。
Facebook正在利用人工智能方法來篩選自殺風(fēng)險并從中不斷獲得進展，但這并不是一個簡單的問題。這是一個科技公司、計算機科學(xué)家和心理學(xué)家都已準(zhǔn)備好迎接的挑戰(zhàn)。
成年人憂心于青少年平時都在干什么。電話、搖滾、漫畫和愛情小說都會引起恐慌。作為一名家長，我很能理解。全世界有三分之一的互聯(lián)網(wǎng)用戶是兒童，算法選擇的內(nèi)容的爆炸式增長尤其引起了人們對責(zé)任方和監(jiān)管方的合理擔(dān)憂。
然而，數(shù)字世界根據(jù)安全、包容、促進和鼓勵的原則設(shè)計，這要求我們抵制基于恐懼的反應(yīng)。我們必須利用數(shù)據(jù)來理解不同背景的年輕人在網(wǎng)上的不同經(jīng)歷。
英文原文
Smartphones are bad for some teens, not all
Young people who are already struggling offline might experience greater negative effects of life online, writes Candice Odgers.
Last year, I received a phone call from an angry father. He had just read in the newspaper about my research suggesting that some adolescents might benefit from time spent online. Once, he raged, his children had been fully engaged with family and church and had talked non-stop at meal times. Now, as adolescents who were constantly connected to their phones, they had disappeared into their online lives.
He is not alone in his concern. Increasingly, people are claiming thatsmartphones have destroyed a generation, or that they might be making adolescents lonely and depressed.
After ten years of tracking adolescents’ mental health and use of smartphones, I think that such views are misguided. Most young people aged 11–19 (ages vary between studies) are doing well in the digital age. In the United States, a record 84% of students graduated from high school in 2016. Pregnancy, violence, alcohol abuse and smoking have all declined in teenagers in the past 20 years. Similar trends have been observed in other countries1.
More and better data are crucial. But studies so far do not support fears that digital devices are driving the downfall of a generation. What online activities might be doing, however, is reflecting and even worsening existing vulnerabilities.
Smartphone generation
In the United States, ownership of mobile phones begins early. My colleagues and I surveyed 2,100 children attending public schools in North Carolina in 2015. In that sample, which is likely to be representative of US adolescents, 48% of 11-year-olds told us they owned a mobile phone. Among 14-year-olds, it was 85% (unpublished data; seego.nature.com/2eeffku).
Another survey, done in the same year, indicates that on average, US teens aged 13–18 engage with screen media (from watching television or online videos to reading online and using social media) for more than 6.5 hours each day; mobile devices account for almost half this time2. Ownership and usage is also high elsewhere: in a 2014 survey of 9- to 16-year-olds in 7 European
Alongside this increase in the use of digital technology, young people aretaking more time to move between childhood and adulthood. Since the 1960s, young people have been delaying social-role transitions such as marriage, childbearing and taking full-time employment4.
There is also some evidence for an increase in mental-health problems among adolescents. The percentage of US girls aged 12–17 reporting depressive episodes increased by more than 4% between 2004 and 2014, to 17.3%. The proportion of boys doing so in 2014 was 5.7%, a rise of 1.2% since 20045. Since 1999, the US suicide rate has also increased for every age group, with the most marked rise among adolescent girls6. Similar trends among young girls have been observed elsewhere7.
Various commentators have suggested that young people’s rapidly increasing use of digital technologies is accelerating or even driving these behavioural shifts and mental-health trends. In fact, last month, investors released an open letter demanding that technology giant Apple respond to what they see as a “growing body of evidence” detailing thenegative consequences of digital devices and social media among young people.
Pros and cons
What do the data show?
In the 1990s and early 2000s, US surveys showed that adolescents who reported spending more time online were more likely to also report symptoms of depression and anxiety8. But back then, a fraction of adolescents were online — only 14% of the US adult population had access to the Internet in 1995 — and most spent time playing games or talking to strangers in chat rooms. Today, more than 90% of US adolescents are online daily, and much of their time is spent connecting with friends and family whom they share their offline lives with.
A handful of more recent studies, mainly involving university students, not adolescents, have probed for correlations between people’s mental health and their use of digital technologies. These have generated a mix of positive, negative and null findings, all with minuscule effect sizes. One of the largest studies so far looked at more than 120,000 UK adolescents in 2017. It found no association between mental well-being and “moderate” use of digital technology, and reported measurable, “albeit small” negative associations for people who had “high levels” of engagement9. (Levels were defined according to empirically derived inflection points.)
Meanwhile, a growing body of research conducted over the past decade suggests that time online can actually benefit young people.
A review of 36 studies published between 2002 and 2017 indicates that teens use digital communication to enhance relationships by sharing intimacy, displaying affection and arranging meet-ups and activities10. A 2009 longitudinal study of more than 1,300 children and teens also showed that children aged 6–12 who had higher-quality social relationships (defined according to caregivers’ descriptions of the children’s relationships with friends, caregivers, siblings and teachers) became more-frequent users of e-mail, chats or instant messaging as adolescents aged 12–18. Their offline friendships as adolescents were also more cohesive, as judged by their own descriptions11.
Experimental studies, in which subjects play computer games in the lab, have shown that virtual communication (texting a peer they didn’t previously know, say) can help adolescents to ‘bounce back’ after social rejection12 — such as being excluded from a game with multiple players.
What the data also suggest, however, is that young people from different socio-economic backgrounds are having very different experiences online.
US teens aged 13–18 from families whose total income is less than US$35,000 per year spend, on average, around 4 hours a day watching television and online videos. That’s around twice as much time as that spent by their peers from households that have incomes of more than $100,000 per year2. In total, low-income teens spend about three hours more each day engaging with screens.
The 2014 study of 3,500 children aged 9–16 from 7 countries in Europe showed that parents in wealthier homes are more likely to “actively mediate” what their child does online. This might be by talking about it, suggesting ways to use the Internet more safely, or joining in and playing computer games, viewing videos or posting alongside their children3.
In general, the adolescents who encounter more adversity in their offline lives seem most likely to experience the negative effects of using smartphones and other digital devices.
In our 2015 North Carolina survey, teens from low-income families were more likely than more-affluent peers to report that their experiences on social media resulted in offline physical fights, face-to-face confrontations, or them getting into trouble at school (see ‘Social-media spillover’). Adolescents who have a history of victimization are more likely to be bullied, solicited and victimized online13. Those with behavioural problems, such as difficulties concentrating in class, or a propensity to get into fights, tend to experience more problems on days when they use digital technology more heavily
Source: C. Odgers et al., Unpublished data
Other studies conducted over the past decade indicate that adolescents struggling in their offline lives are more likely to have negative online experiences14. For example, already-vulnerable young people are more likely to receive negative feedback on social media, experience difficulties regulating their use of the Internet and spend more time ‘lurking’ — passively viewing others online, rather than actively engaging with them15.
The ‘digital divide’ has conventionally referred to differential access to new technologies. That gap still exists, but is shrinking in many countries16. In our 2015 survey, 92% of adolescents aged 10–15 from economically disadvantaged homes had access to the Internet, compared with 97% of other teens of the same age. And 65% of those from disadvantaged homes owned a mobile device, compared with 69% of their peers.
What we’re seeing now might be the emergence of a new kind of digital divide, in which differences in online experiences are amplifying risks among already-vulnerable adolescents.
Explore inequalities
Some might counter that digital technologies are simply providing a fresh medium for the expression of existing problems. They could be right. But given the patterns emerging, it is crucial to investigate thoroughly whether and how the online experiences of adolescents worsen existing inequalities. We must also invest in evidence-based ways to ensure that online experiences are positive for all young people.
This will require advances on several fronts, including the design of rigorous experimental studies. These are challenging because of the difficulty of obtaining control groups — adolescents who are offline or who are willing to have their phones taken away.
One possibility is for researchers to home in on the transition period — when young people first begin to have regular access to mobile devices and social media. Indeed, mobile devices are hugely enabling when conducting research and randomized control trials focused on behaviour and mental health in young people.
Mental states can be gleaned directly from reported information, or indirectly — from data on sleep patterns collected by a wearable device, from entries on Facebook or Twitter, or even from how people text.
Computer scientists, for instance, have predicted the onset of depression from social-media posts and engagement patterns17. Also, mobile technologies can be used to deliver ‘just-in-time’ interventions and support. A 2016 meta-analysis found that brief interventions, such as computer-assisted cognitive behavioural therapy delivered through mobile devices, improved people’s psychological well-being and reduced reported symptoms of depression and anxiety18.
Experimental rigour demands common research protocols, such as standardized questionnaires for assessing online usage and experiences across multiple contexts. The Global Kids Online research toolkit is an excellent example. But such protocols need to be made available in a way that would allow investigators to update them continually, to capture adolescents’ evolving digital habits and environments.
The data obtained so far call for other changes, too. Neuroscientists, psychologists and paediatricians need to join forces with those working on human–computer interactions. The Jacobs Foundation 2015 conference on Technologies for Research and Intervention with Children and Youth, at Marbach Castle in Germany, concentrated on building these types of interdisciplinary partnership. Many more such opportunities are needed.
Until a stronger evidence base is built, those who care about the healthy development of adolescents must keep questioning powerful narratives about the next generation. These can blind parents, educators and others to the potential benefits of new technologies for this age group, or, worse, cause the real determinants of mental health and other problems to be missed.
A 2017 petition published in The Guardian newspaper called for policies based on evidence, not fear, and was signed by more than 80 scientists (myself included). It offered some pushback against a predominantly one-sided conversation in the media. More crucial is informed and evidence-based dialogue between educators, health professionals, parents, researchers and adolescents.
Familiar territory
Because online problems can be largely predicted by young people’s vulnerabilities offline, much of our existing knowledge about what promotes healthy child development is applicable even in what seems like a foreign digital landscape. Strategies such as the maintenance of supportive parent–child relationships that encourage disclosure, parental involvement in the activities of their children, and the avoidance of overly restrictive or coercive monitoring will help to support adolescents and keep them safe online, just as they do offline.
Leading professional organizations, such as the European Association for Research on Adolescence, the World Economic Forum and the Society for Research in Child Development, could provide important leadership in this regard. Finally, partnerships between local governments, technology companies and educational institutions are key to ensuring that young people, including the most vulnerable, have equal opportunities online.
Social-media sites offer basic protections for adolescent users by providing information to caregivers. But most safety protocols rely on parental advocacy and active mediation and management of online activities, which might leave the most vulnerable young people unprotected.
In December 2017, Facebook pledged $1 million in research funds to help better understand the “relationship between media technologies, youth development and well-being”. The best use of such funding could be the development of tools, screening algorithms and outreach strategies for the most vulnerable adolescents. For instance, machine learning and clinical expertise could be leveraged to build classifiers that predict current and future mental-health problems, and such screening algorithms could be used alongside ‘just-in-time’ interventions.
As Facebook is learning from its recent application of artificial-intelligence approaches to screening for suicide risk, this is not a simple problem. But it is a challenge that technology companies, computer scientists and psychologists are well positioned to take on.
Adults worry about how adolescents spend their time. The telephone, rock ’n’ roll, comic books and romance novels all elicited panic. As a parent, I am sympathetic. One in three Internet users worldwide is a child, and the explosion of algorithmically selected content in particularraises legitimate concerns about responsibility and agency.
Yet the design of a digital world that is safe, inclusive, stimulating and nurturing for all requires that we resist fear-based reactions. Instead, we must use the data to understand the very different experiences that young people from diverse backgrounds are having online.
Nature 554, 432-434 (2018)
