And the study adjusted for the factors that you mentioned, so they cannot be the reason.

No. from a quick RTFS:
"Multiple linear regression analyses with robust standard errors estimated the association between social media trajectories and year 2 cognitive performance scores (5 subtests and composite). Models adjusted for baseline variables including age, sex, race and ethnicity, household income, parent education, attention-deficit/hyperactivity symptoms, depression symptoms, respective baseline cognitive score, other screen time, and study site."

I think you are the one that is too quick to blame your favorite scapegoat.

That would not explain the low-level use group, which also saw a decline in cognitive performance.

This report together with our worsening social climate in many aspects do point to a clear and desperately needed conclusion - ban all social media across the west. It doesn't do us any favors, and we aren't biologically designed to handle this type of social setting. If that is impossible, dumb social media functionality down to a more blunt instrument, like it was in the past. BBS contacts, emails to a single person, SMS/text messages to a single person; anything that behaves similar to communication between two individuals rather than the screeching into the town square with no concern for rebuttal or response.

TV has been around for a long time. These results would be apparent much earlier were it the case that *only* screen time in general was the problem.
With that said, excessive use of quick and easy entertainment has been established as an issue, including TV and computers.
The results here show that social media is significantly worse than TV and will breed a generation or three of Trump voters.

Pre-cancer tumors and lesions aren't reported as cancers, they are reported as Intraepithelial neoplasias or dysplasias in solid cancers. it is only once the tumor has become invasive (or micro-invasive in some cases) that it is classified as a cancer. Current improvement strategies around cancer detection revolve around early detection of pre-cancer symptoms, where intervention can be more beneficial and less risky along with enabling less pervasive treatment options. This would not appear in official cancer statistics, though I can't speak to the statistics of the common science journalist.

Dying from drugs would reduce cancer incidence, as that is a competing outcome.

The weird part is that this seems more reasonable than what the current team is doing.

Just out of curiosity, would "wartime" against an unspecified foe or a drug-related "emergency" suspend the electoral process for a new president until said event had passed?

Not to mention it will likely lead to more innovation.

Privacy is a significant part of Apple's brand, and part of what separates them from Google. They would have lost a tremendous amount of brand value, and future income, with backdoors. If they believed they could have earned more money by offering access to their users via backdoors, your sphincter would be sore and purple right now.

That is easy. Look at what happens when countries defund the education system. Everything is fine in the short term, then it gets worse, and finally you end up with a populace voting someone like Trump into power. Except in this case it will be Cyberdyne systems.

Yes but it will create a lot of robot jobs. Millions of jobs! The best jobs! China wants those jobs but they can't have them! Patriotic jobs! Big success! Succulent greatness!

I am actually optimistic about this. Airline predatory pricing has been around for quite some time, and this enormously greedy move looks like the straw that broke the camel's back if I've ever seen on. Avarice always ends up scouring itself in the end.

If this goes through I would expect a complete ban on "dynamic" pricing within two years, and possibly a ban on AI-determined pricing overall.

Go greed go!

Given how much money they are making off those "free" services they would provide customer service and still make bank if forced.