Another poorly described article
I think this goes to show the complete lack of understanding of some article writers - a basic lack of comprehension of the difference between correlation and causality. It is not the act of using social websites that would cause a shorter life expectancy - it's the fact that people who spend more time on social networks also spend less time socialising in person. They are correlated, not causal.
This is like the study that was done in the US a while ago finding that people who smoke Cuban cigars live longer. This does not mean everyone should go and smoke cuban cigars to increase life expectancy. Only that people who do smoke them normally will have a lot of money and access to better healthcare.
What does it take to get some articles that are not entirely misleading for the first half dozen paragraphs?
Biting the hand that feeds IT
