[HN Gopher] Most Canadians believe Facebook harms their mental h...
___________________________________________________________________
Most Canadians believe Facebook harms their mental health
Author : elorant
Score : 523 points
Date : 2021-10-15 15:43 UTC (7 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.theglobeandmail.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.theglobeandmail.com)
| azangru wrote:
| Why don't they quit then?
| quadrangle wrote:
| You can ask that for every single behavior that anyone claims
| goes against their deeper values like good health. Why do
| people keep smoking or eating junk food or staying up too late
| or yelling at family and friends when they lose their temper?
|
| It's true that deeds speak louder than words. But it's also
| true that habits are hard to break, and there's the thinking-
| fast-and-slow ideas that our judgments, actions, and values are
| different when we are in the immediate flow of emotion vs
| considering the big picture with detachment.
|
| If you ask "why" in a sincere curious way, there's a ton of
| interesting things to investigate. I hope that was the attitude
| you meant as opposed to the anti-curious condescending "why"
| that amounts to just being a doubter.
| azangru wrote:
| > If you ask "why" in a sincere curious way
|
| No, I was asking why in a frustrated rhetorical way. I get
| annoyed by the frequency with which people complain about
| social media, which is usually followed by requests for a
| government intervention or for a stricter moderation by the
| network owners. Just quit, I want to say. The internet is
| huge. Find yourself another hobby. A better network. Or, if
| you think you are addicted, as you may be to alcohol or
| drugs, seek help. It should be your responsibility, don't put
| it on others.
| passivate wrote:
| >You can ask that for every single behavior that anyone
| claims goes against their deeper values like good health. Why
| do people keep smoking or eating junk food or staying up too
| late or yelling at family and friends when they lose their
| temper?
|
| Okay, but who other than that individual person is to blame
| for their behavior? If we blame external agents for all of
| societies ills, that completely devalues personal
| responsibility. I don't buy the "facebook made me do it"
| defense.
| remir wrote:
| Social media, ultimately, is information. There is no point in
| polarizing Facebook as good or bad. It is access to certain types
| of information and one must learn to discern if it can serve them
| or not.
| r00fus wrote:
| Rootkits are information, too. Why do we have anti-malware
| functionality built into our systems/networks?
|
| Yes, I am am making the analogy that large parts of FB are
| equivalent to malware.
| white-flame wrote:
| Facebook (and most other businesses in the space) is a system
| of manipulating and editorializing individuals' social
| communication in order to extract engagement-related profit.
|
| This is not a common carrier, but an active distorter.
| stemlord wrote:
| Wrong, facebook is a politically involved corporate entity.
| Additionally they've proven relentlessly over the past decade
| plus to give zero fucks about improving their scorched earth
| method of making money.
| mensetmanusman wrote:
| So social media turns out to be like alcohol. Possible to use in
| moderation, but abused to negative health detriments by most
| partakers.
| vadfa wrote:
| If it's over 50% then it's no problem, they can just quit it
| without fearing network effects. There will be enough users in
| the new platform.
| zepto wrote:
| What new platform? Why won't the new platform be just as bad?
|
| Switching brand of cigarettes doesn't protect your lungs.
| vadfa wrote:
| It will be just as bad, I'm just mocking this stupid survey.
| zepto wrote:
| Fair comment!
| jszymborski wrote:
| I think that's a fair point, but I wonder if I can probe HNs
| brain on what a "healthy" online social network would look
| like.
|
| Here are some thoughts I have:
|
| 1) The platform does not have a user-engagement incentive.
|
| 2) Personal network sizes are restricted. You can't be
| "friends" with everyone. Adding friends perhaps comes at some
| cost or is just strictly capped.
|
| 3) Sharing outside your friends network from the platform is
| not possible. This platform is for sharing with your friends,
| not the world.
|
| 4) Trust in the platform and how it shares your data. The
| easiest way to trust the server is if everything is E2EE, but
| we all know that's not trivial. Perhaps the limits in scaling
| E2EE can work synergistically with (2) and (3)
|
| (1) seems to be the hardest thing here in my mind.
|
| Anybody have thoughts on what could make a social network
| "healthy"?
| hungryhobo wrote:
| heh funny enough, wechat satisfies 1-3. So maybe someone
| just need to clone that.
| pzo wrote:
| some good points. I would add also:
|
| 5) limit how many posts / pictures / content you can share
| per day to avoid information overload. This should make
| people double thing what they are writing and hopefully
| more higher quality content.
|
| 6) automatically limit time spend for everyone on social
| media for e.g. 30-60 min per person per day.
|
| 7) Different business model than ads.
| bena wrote:
| 5 & 6 just means multiple accounts per person.
|
| 7 means some sort of paywall. You either collect from the
| users themselves, or collect from people who want access
| to those users.
| pzo wrote:
| I just only added features that IMO would make a
| healthier social network. It's different problem how to
| implement in a way to avoid people try to game it. Maybe
| it's not even possible and only utopia.
| bena wrote:
| The only problem is how to implement it in a way to avoid
| people gaming it.
|
| You didn't "add features", you made a wish list.
|
| What's your "solution" for online advertising? Ads that
| are noticeable but unobtrusive? Now all we got to do is
| get the nerds down in R&D to make it happen. It's a
| miracle no one has thought of this before.
| soylentcola wrote:
| > Anybody have thoughts on what could make a social network
| "healthy"?
|
| Personally? I was thinking about this the other day and how
| I wish it was more like email - use whatever provider you
| want or host your own - either way you can post and share
| with other users.
|
| That's at least one criteria after seeing how so much of
| the network effects are created by the need to use _one
| platform_ in order to communicate on that platform.
|
| Then I started thinking about how this would work.
| Subscribing to the feeds of people you care about, being
| able to browse and search updates, etc. and in the end I
| realized I was basically describing RSS with easy
| publishing tools.
|
| Host your stuff on whatever platform/host/provider you
| prefer and see fit, but have some common format "calling
| card" or address that you can use to share your
| subscription address.
|
| Competition would come in the form of hosting options,
| reader features, etc. but the conflict would likely result
| from some providers "innovating" features that only work on
| their platforms, devices, etc. Sort of like how I can
| message with anyone with full functionality...unless
| they're on an iPhone and default to iMessage. Then I'm
| downgraded to SMS/MMS.
|
| That said, I would still prefer a nonFacebook that still
| allowed me to follow/converse with people on Facebook, even
| if it stuck me with the shitty interface when dealing with
| non-standardized platform "features".
| bena wrote:
| > The platform does not have a user-engagement incentive.
|
| Then you lose to a platform that does. There does need to
| be a level of incentive for user-engagement. Either that or
| users will invent one.
|
| > Personal network sizes are restricted. You can't be
| "friends" with everyone. Adding friends perhaps comes at
| some cost or is just strictly capped.
|
| Facebook is capped at 5000 connections where a connection
| is defined as a friend or page like. You can argue whether
| or not this should be a smaller number, but technically
| Facebook does have this.
|
| > Sharing outside your friends network from the platform is
| not possible. This platform is for sharing with your
| friends, not the world.
|
| What about Friend-of-a-friends? How do two people find out
| they're both on the platform? _Some_ information has to be
| publicly available. I think if you stop making "public" an
| option, users will just find some way to make things more
| public. Like sharing images via avatar image. Or taking
| screenshots and passing those among their friends (and
| their friends share with their friends, etc).
|
| > Trust in the platform and how it shares your data. The
| easiest way to trust the server is if everything is E2EE,
| but we all know that's not trivial. Perhaps the limits in
| scaling E2EE can work synergistically with (2) and (3)
|
| Eh. End to end encryption only matters for information you
| want to be kept private. And the information isn't being
| shared between you and me, it's being shared between
| Facebook and me, then Facebook and you. The problem is that
| Facebook is the one selling the data. It's the fact that
| they're the hub.
|
| It's a hard problem all over because in a lot of places,
| you're fighting human nature.
|
| Maybe a P2P/torrent style system, where all the information
| is encrypted and your data exists as a hash. To contribute
| to that hash, you need the private key, to read that hash,
| you need the public key. Connections are made by swapping
| public keys with people. You'd need a way to get your own
| private key from some source if you want to use multiple
| platforms. But if the private key was stored in some
| central hub, but encrypted, you could request the encrypted
| private key and then use your password/phrase to decrypt it
| on your device.
|
| Just spitballing.
| lovecg wrote:
| From an evolutionary perspective, the thing that grows and
| is used is the thing that wins. If you take away the growth
| incentive you can't compete by definition unless you change
| the rules of the game (worldwide government regulation?).
| rightbyte wrote:
| > Switching brand of cigarettes doesn't protect your lungs.
|
| Atleast get one with filters?
| zepto wrote:
| Filters make cigarettes mildly worse.
|
| https://www.quora.com/Is-smoking-unfiltered-cigarettes-
| signi...
| dylan604 wrote:
| Don't worry, we've switched to clean coal because it's better
| for the environment
| dymk wrote:
| How do you figure 50%? It's not like groups of friends are
| going to put it to a vote and say "Let's go use this other
| thing". And even if they did, alternatives to Facebook simply
| don't exist for people to switch to (I'd be happy for somebody
| to give me an example of a comparable service to what Facebook
| offers in terms of features and ease of use).
|
| And even if one does exist, most groups of people aren't going
| to abandon the <50% of those who do want to stay on the
| platform.
|
| From the article:
|
| > However, more than three in four believe the social network
| helps them stay connected to their loved ones, with just over
| 50 per cent saying it is key to sharing information and
| positive for free expression.
| iamdbtoo wrote:
| The "they can just quit it" part is directly at odds with the
| "harms their mental health" part. Not being able to quit
| something that is harming you is at the core of addiction.
| filoleg wrote:
| We don't ban alcohol, videogames, twitter, tv shows, or
| buying excessive amounts of food, despite a giant number of
| people in the US suffering from addiction to those. War on
| drugs was a failure.
|
| At some point, you have to draw a line at where you take
| personal responsibility. The utility to those who can use
| those things I listed above responsibly outweighs the
| potential danger and plies of those who use "addiction" as
| their primary argument for bans (aka I have no self-control,
| so you should not be able to use those things responsibly
| either).
|
| I am not saying "let's make heroin recreationally legal, just
| use it responsibly", since both utility and danger are
| gradients, and for heroin they are of very dubious value. But
| for something that has no physical addiction component at
| all, like videogames or facebook, I am sorry, it is on you.
|
| And please, no pedantry with "I get hits of dopamine when I
| browse my FB feed, so it is a physical addiction too!". This
| is not what physical addiction means in the context.
| iamdbtoo wrote:
| I never suggested banning anything. I was merely pointing
| out that those two points are contradictory.
|
| The way you talk about addiction, however, makes me think
| you don't really understand how it works and seemingly view
| any addiction that isn't physical as invalid and that is
| not how it works.
| filoleg wrote:
| >The way you talk about addiction, however, makes me
| think you don't really understand how it works and
| seemingly view any addiction that isn't physical as
| invalid and that is not how it works.
|
| Poor assumption. Psychological addictions are just as
| valid as physical, and I've never claimed otherwise. I
| just believe that you cannot legislate the sources of
| psychological addictions like you can with sources of
| physical ones. Primarily because literally anything can
| be a source of psychological addiction, depending on the
| flavor of the month.
|
| Cannabis has a strong psychological addiction component,
| and yet people tend to conveniently forget about it when
| it comes to legalizing it recreationally (I am in full
| support of the legalization btw).
|
| Why? I think we know why, it is because people decided
| that it is the responsibility of an individual to not
| abuse something that doesn't have a physical addiction
| component. But if they end up getting psychologically
| addicted and need help, then sure, I am all in favor of
| supporting those people and helping them to get out of
| the addiction rut they are in.
| nafix wrote:
| Exactly. How is this even an argument point? If you support
| banning Facebook because of addictive potential, then add
| about 50 other things to the list to ban as well. If it's
| to regulate Facebook more, what exact kind of regulation
| would make it OK again? Age limit, as in 18+ to use? Don't
| porn sites use that and children still have no issues
| logging onto those sites.
| iamdbtoo wrote:
| I never said anything about banning anything.
| [deleted]
| designertop wrote:
| I've been hearing this for over 5 years now, but social media is
| still booming, and most people are still on Facebook, and similar
| apps, and spending more time than ever.
|
| It feels weird as if everyone agrees, and knows that smoking
| kills but continue to smokes more and more.
| Applejinx wrote:
| Almost as if there are exploitable addictive properties that
| can be analyzed, maximized, monetized.
|
| To KNOW is not gonna change anything much. It's the nature of
| the beast.
| ahevia wrote:
| I've asked this question to a few non-tech friends. They
| definitely know and recognize the harms of using social media,
| but for many them just struggle to quit. They don't even know
| how to put their addictions into words.
|
| There were a few who also used it because it's easy to keep up
| with family or friends who might live far away (which is a
| really valid use case!) and have no problem quitting it or
| never checking.
|
| These products are designed to be addicting. My hypothesis is
| that folks might recognize the harm but since the downside is
| reducing the quality of your mental state (FB doesn't increase
| your risk of cancer ala smoking). It's just not a priority to
| fix the addiction.
| smegger001 wrote:
| Alcoholics know they are destroying their liver buy still
| drink, heavy caffeine addicts know their sleep cycle is being
| disrupted but still drink coffee. Thing is, there is a socially
| acceptable amount that not significantly destructive. I can
| drink a coffee at 8 am and still get to sleep, I can have a
| beer at the monthly game night and still have a functional
| healthy liver. How much social media can I consume and not fall
| in depression, compulsive behavior or be polarized in a fringe
| ideology?
|
| Well for me I have mostly quit Facebook (other than messenger
| and using it for event scheduling for game night.) I don't do
| TikTok, Twitter, or Instagram. I only use Reddit for niche
| interest/hobbies and deleted all the default subs. I only use
| Snapchat to talk to a couple of people because its the best way
| to get ahold of them, and then there a couple of forums like
| hackernews i lurk and occasionaly post in and that enough for
| me.
|
| Used in moderation social media is fine. Just like a beer every
| month or so or a coffee in the morning
| causalmodels wrote:
| Self reporting is a notoriously bad measure. It would be nice if
| we had actual, measurable data to go on.
| greenail wrote:
| The knee jerk reaction to this is likely one to push for
| regulation but I don't think that is the solution. We should keep
| in mind that we still have choice, we can choose not to use
| Facebook. That choice is likely to have a powerful effect on the
| direction Facebook (or any other platform) takes. My fear is that
| government control of social media is such a tempting power it
| would be hard for politicians not abuse it. It strikes me that
| this is more of an issue with our culture than anything. That
| begs the question: can we choose to self moderate social media?
| The pandemic sure isn't helping.
| SavantIdiot wrote:
| > we can choose not to use Facebook
|
| You're looking at this from a western perspective. Some non-
| western countries are entirely linked by Facebook products.
| When Facebook went down last week, some people couldn't access
| their _BANKS_. You OK with that?
|
| That's what Facebook wants: to become something you simply MUST
| use to survive.
|
| It goes deeper in the US as well but not as deep: some
| restaurants and small shops don't have websites, they have
| facebook/instragram pages, which means I cannot access them.
|
| We need legislation to stop Facebook creep, because that
| "creep" eventually makes it mandatory.
| greenail wrote:
| > You're looking at this from a western perspective. Some
| non-western countries are entirely linked by Facebook
| products. When Facebook went down last week, some people
| couldn't access their BANKS. You OK with that?
|
| I'm not ok with that at all however I would guess that those
| decisions are being reevaluated as we speak!
|
| >That's what Facebook wants: to become something you simply
| MUST use to survive.
|
| But if you choose not to use the platform they will never
| have the power to make that happen. Anyone in power would be
| tempted to make themselves indispensable. It is a very human
| thing and let's not forget how flawed we all are.
|
| >We need legislation to stop Facebook creep, because that
| "creep" eventually makes it mandatory.
|
| You just move the power from Facebook to the government, it
| doesn't solve the core problem.
| SavantIdiot wrote:
| > But if you choose not to use the platform they will never
| have the power
|
| It is far too late for that. Facebook is too big.
|
| I'm guessing you don't know that there are countries in the
| world where Facebook is the only internet, am I right? Free
| Basic is a service that they offered with free internet in
| poor countries, but Facebook is the only internet. It has
| changed a little as governments have realized this is a
| problem but it is still the dominant form of internet in
| some places.
|
| There are 2.8 billion monthly users, but only 200 million
| are from the US, yet it is a US company. [1]
|
| > You just move the power from Facebook to the government,
| it doesn't solve the core problem.
|
| You are assuming Facebook and the government are the same
| thing. (US I presume.) They are not the same. A government
| isn't a corporation. This is a totally different
| discussion.
|
| [1] https://www.statista.com/statistics/268136/top-15-count
| ries-...
| greenail wrote:
| >You are assuming Facebook and the government are the
| same thing. (US I presume.) They are not the same. A
| government isn't a corporation. This is a totally
| different discussion.
|
| I'm saying that social media is a form of power. If you
| take control from Facebook and regulate it (give the
| power to the government) you are simply just shift the
| power from one potential abuser to another.
| SavantIdiot wrote:
| Anyone can abuse power. A government can be changed by
| the people. Like I said, this is a different discussion.
| If you're coming to the discussion that cynical about
| government already, there's not much I can say.
| Minor49er wrote:
| > You're looking at this from a western perspective. Some
| non-western countries are entirely linked by Facebook
| products. When Facebook went down last week, some people
| couldn't access their BANKS. You OK with that?
|
| Wasn't this because DNS servers were effectively DDoS'd when
| applications overwhelmed them with requests looking for
| Facebook without caching the response? Or are there actually
| banks out there that require Facebook to log in?
| pzo wrote:
| So many people these days instead of creating separate
| account to some websites (login/password) the use instead
| integrated Login via Facebook button. I tried to educate
| friends and family not to use this feature even for the
| reason that if their FB account will be blocked they will
| loose access to many other websites. However many people
| give up because it's not so convenient as to just clicking
| one FB button.
| greenail wrote:
| I agree that single sign on takes advantage of people not
| understanding what they give up when they choose
| FB/Google for SSO. What government policy could fix that?
| The fallback seems to be that people just re-use their
| email address in all their accounts.
| smegger001 wrote:
| which probably brings them back to a google or microsoft
| email account. back in the early twenty teens facebook
| even tried running a email service but killed it latter.
| if this were to happen it would probably make a comeback.
| Minor49er wrote:
| I have accounts with a couple of banks and can't say I've
| ever seen them using OAuth. But if they did, I'd consider
| other banking options.
| smegger001 wrote:
| how is using OAuth any different from using your email
| for a password reset.
| glonq wrote:
| It's true, but TBH so do the Leafs.
| flycaliguy wrote:
| Yeah, I mean, this is among Canadians willing to fill out a
| survey online. Frankly it feels like another push in the media
| world to shift blame to FB.
|
| As far as specifically Canadian factors, maybe don't survey us in
| October when the days are getting noticeably shorter? I feel like
| we are all a little melancholy right now preparing for our
| lightless morning commutes.
| keewee7 wrote:
| What I don't understand is the selective outrage against
| Facebook/Instagram.
|
| Why not Twitter, YouTube, reddit and TikTok?
| LanceH wrote:
| The real crime is perpetrated by those choosing Twitter to
| tell a long story broken into individual tweets.
| na85 wrote:
| Twitter, Youtube, Reddit, and TikTok don't have megalomaniac
| CEOs who got rich selling out their users to advertisers
| while spending that money on PR messages like "privacy is
| dead" and then turning around to buy all the mansions around
| theirs so that they can protect their privacy.
|
| Also there's that little itty bitty issue where Facebook was
| purposely manipulating people's timeline feeds to see if they
| could produce depression-like symptoms, without informed
| consent.
| rndmind wrote:
| Don't forget the hostile attempts at monopolizing
| information access in India and 3rd world countries with
| INTERNET.org that was so nefarious I was very scared,
| fortunately india thwarted facebook, inc's malicious plan
| and rejected it... but internet.org still went on to poison
| other 3rd world countries like the philippines and
| indonesia, before their nescient tech industry even had a
| chance to stop it.
|
| In addition, the nefarious bribery of brazilian telcoms to
| allow whatsapp to have unlimited and free network
| bandwidth, so as to out-muscle any competitors.
|
| Indeed, fb did push out PR messages like privacy is dead,
| although I'd love to cite some source on that... all I want
| to say is, Privacy isn't dead facebook, you're dead!
| [deleted]
| golemiprague wrote:
| Because facebook give a place for not so lefty people to
| express their mind. Twitter and reddit are lefty so they are
| protected, Tiktok is Chinese so no political points gains
| attacking it since they don't care about some American
| opinion. Youtube people actually have to invest time and
| effort to make an engaging content so people at least have
| some basic appreciation for it.
| Tiktaalik wrote:
| Or traditional media? Are we pretending that fashion
| magazines have never pushed toxic body image messages onto
| young people? lol
| monkeynotes wrote:
| I don't think YT or Reddit are any where near as insidious as
| FB, Twitter, and TikTok.
|
| YouTube's feed basically shows me what I am subscribed to
| which is interesting shit I am legit interested in. I don't
| see any of my friends talking about their amazing lives, or
| any political BS, at all. The comments section is a 3rd class
| citizen in much of their UI and less toxic than friends all
| piling in and arguing about crap.
|
| Reddit is global conversations, the topics and comments can
| be toxic but it's not an echochamber by design. I will say
| though, Reddit does make me sad sometimes so I have to work
| at it to use it in a healthy way.
|
| Twitter, Tiktok, and unfortunately more and more Instagram
| are also sludge pools IMO.
| keewee7 wrote:
| >Reddit is global conversations, the topics and comments
| can be toxic but it's not an echochamber by design.
|
| Reddit is a de facto echo chamber. The two biggest news
| subreddits are heavily censored.
| dr-detroit wrote:
| If you love being exploited by the ultra rich why dont you just
| move to Russia and let the rest of us at least try to avoid the
| social media brainscramble.
| munk-a wrote:
| I am actively disappointed that this organization chose to use
| such a weak survey to prove their point. It feels pretty darn
| accurate as a Canadian on the ground so paying out for a phone
| survey could have dodged all this doubt.
| AzzieElbab wrote:
| what do most canadians think about the globe and mail?
| version_five wrote:
| Yeah that was the first thing that went through my mind too.
| There are few traditional news outlets that don't try and
| incite rage driven attention. The globe and mail is not a
| tabloid (last I checked, I'm 10 years into a boycott) but it
| still tries to bait people into viewing its stories in a way
| that's tailored to its readership.
| AzzieElbab wrote:
| realized it's been that way forever.
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vYMXyzOaaU8
| uptownfunk wrote:
| Anyone ever think about getting rid of their smart phone and
| going back to a flip phone? Honestly, I'm tempted to try this
| experiment.
| starik36 wrote:
| It would be interesting to see whether people think news networks
| also harm their mental health.
| Applejinx wrote:
| Once Facebook's got through with them, I'm sure people do think
| that.
|
| Quite aside from the deterioration of that medium, there's been
| good money in helping nefarious actors poison that well.
| mlang23 wrote:
| Apparently, canadians are a smart bunch!
| cortexio wrote:
| What i dont understand is that i always see these negative
| articles about "facebook". What about twitter or instagram??? It
| almost feels like propaganda, even though i agree with those
| canadians to some extend.
| mensetmanusman wrote:
| It's interesting comparing this to internet pornography, which is
| bigger than FB as a whole, and which (according to youth self
| surveys) harms mental health (according to ~60% in some surveys).
| yodsanklai wrote:
| Getting a bit tired of the Facebook bashing. Everyday some posts
| make the front page and don't provide any new or interesting
| information.
| subliminalpanda wrote:
| https://archive.is/St4NG
| pmlnr wrote:
| ... and so they stopped using it.
|
| Oh, right. That's never what follows.
| renewiltord wrote:
| I actually used to use Instagram quite a lot because it brought
| me quite a bit of happiness seeing what my friends were up to and
| IG had defensive measures to protect me:
|
| - The "you're all caught up" screen that stops me from scrolling
|
| - The fact that stories signify whether they're watched
|
| - The fact that my posts feed only contained followed stuff plus
| ads
|
| So there was the sense of "I'm caught up with my friends' lives".
| Anyway, they've changed it:
|
| - They now place random stuff below the list of my friends' posts
|
| - They place people I don't follow into the ad slots for stories
|
| Anyway, I use it much less now and we just end up sharing photos
| in group chats.
|
| Does anyone know of what a true IG replacement is? Like something
| for your friends and you.
| kebman wrote:
| I make a conscious effort to not get sucked into Facebook. One
| rule I have is to never browse past the first ad unless I've got
| the day off. That minimizes a lot of the time I spend there.
| Unfortunately I am involved in a few special interest groups in
| there, but at least the information we share serves a purpose.
| For everything else, I simply use the standalone Messenger app.
| That way I can still keep in touch with my friends, without
| having to scroll through mostly pointless Fb posts and ads.
| macksd wrote:
| As a side note, I'm a little saddened when I see friends
| apologize for their posts. There's such a reaction to "influencer
| culture" that people feel like foodgrams and humblebrags are a
| terrible thing, and in excess they certainly can be, but I think
| from most people it's a billion times better than strawman
| political arguments and manipulative media that is far worse for
| our mental health than just comparing ourselves to someone's good
| day.
|
| I had a friend post a picture of food made from ingredients they
| had made in their own garden, and it made them feel so good to
| eat it because they had had a rough year and it was a good
| personal win, so they apologetically posted a photo of it.
|
| Forget the rest of the trash on Facebook - seeing a friend I
| haven't seen in a while experience something good and being able
| to share that with them is something we need more of in the
| world. I'd trade away all the "only geniuses can remember the
| order of operations for this future scam page" or "you won't
| believe how this person misrepresents their opponents views and
| tears that misrepresentation apart!" and keep stuff like this.
| LegitShady wrote:
| The only reasons there is value in facebook (to me)
|
| 1) To get updates on friends or family I don't talk to
| regularly, including their garden food pictures.
|
| 2) To use facebook marketplace, because in my region its
| basically taken over the online classifieds and if I want to
| buy or sell something facebook is the way to go currently.
| noizejoy wrote:
| > ... I see friends apologize for their posts.
|
| Canadians?
| [deleted]
| wesapien wrote:
| Facebook was good when it was just about adding your people and
| then seeing posts of your Facebook friends and messaging with
| them. It turned harmful when they forced the news feed content
| on everyone.
|
| I'd like to share the most coherent conversation regarding the
| harms of Facebook (to a certain extent big tech
| algorithms/ML/AI). This is with Tristan Harris, Daniel
| Schmachtenberger and Frank Luntz. I didn't find any dull moment
| so please watch the whole thing.
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VPAOzlqcGIQ
| [deleted]
| tmp_anon_22 wrote:
| A lot of social media posts come down to bragging under the
| guise of "celebrating life". People will go on a vacation and
| then meter out the pictures from it over months to appear like
| they're on perpetual vacations. I don't mind people apologizing
| for those.
|
| To say nothing of edited photos.
| whimsicalism wrote:
| > People will go on a vacation and then meter out the
| pictures from it over months to appear like they're on
| perpetual vacations. I don't mind people apologizing for
| those.
|
| I've noticed this increasingly. It's sorta bizarre?
| macksd wrote:
| Yeah that's fair, and I've seen that. I think the key is
| authenticity. As others have mentioned sometimes it's just a
| firehose of good things happening to other people. I've also
| seen a friend speak candidly about their struggle with mental
| health and suicide - again great to see everyone rally around
| them, and be aware of it. Probably a good way for them to get
| more support, and make other people aware that (a) current
| mental health resources kinda suck, (b) other people might be
| struggling just like you, and (c) everyone realize that their
| friend needs help.
|
| But yeah - being vulnerable and open like that is hard and
| not for everyone. And it can also be faked for attention.
| Ultimately I don't know what a platform is supposed to do if
| everyone starts optimizing for the algorithm or is constantly
| consuming the very content that is bad for them but doesn't
| want censorship. There's no win - social media would be
| amazing if everyone was kind, honest and authentic. But I
| realize that's asking the impossible on a global scale.
| johnchristopher wrote:
| I really do believe there's a solution for that.
|
| We need whatsapp/telegram/signal to display a feed based on
| user's status and nothing more. It's almost free, frictionless
| and free from ads (for now). But sharing without the widest
| audience (just to the social graph of your contacts).
|
| It could bring back Google+'s circles so you don't share the
| same stuff with colleagues and friends and family, but your
| feed page would display it all the same.
|
| Decentralized micro blogging without the huge tech cost and
| barrier of entry of mastodon.
|
| People could choose how people are allowed to react to their
| status: limited in time, to the latest status update, limited
| to emoji/thumbs up reactions, allows starting new chat with
| that status as a topic, etc.
|
| It also reminds me of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pownce
| which I thought had some great ideas at the time.
|
| There's no money in it though, so maybe bring back the old
| whatsapp model ? 1EUR for 6 months or something ?
|
| Or maybe just tell people to start a group chat in which they
| post updates ? Facebook/Twitter/Instagram got that easy to
| post/single tunnel thing simplified to the max, I don't think
| you can do better without being centralized.
| monkeybutton wrote:
| I find group chats with different groups of friends and
| family has filled this niche. There's no ads. There's no
| technical barrier to entry. No need to even sign up for a
| service. The stakes are low, messages can just be a meme or
| some nice photos from a day trip. The only downside is the
| ephemeral nature of texting. Even then, my MIL figured out
| how to save pictures to her phone and they occasionally show
| up in the calendars she makes as Christmas gifts.
| mattbk1 wrote:
| What do you see as the "huge tech cost and barrier of entry
| of mastodon"?
| Pxtl wrote:
| Imho, the big toxic thing on Facebook wasn't the "news", it
| was "your friend liked this" and "your friend commented on
| this". That's where we get inundated with awfulness. My
| friends don't post/share terrible stuff, but they do
| occasionally _interact_ with terrible stuff.
| BikiniPrince wrote:
| Well if you learn to live your life and enjoy time with
| your friends you will be much happier.
|
| I don't care what my friends are doing outside of our
| interactions. Maybe if they started to murder puppies in
| their spare time.
| 5faulker wrote:
| Only years will tell whether FB will evolve to become a
| humanity+ or a humanity- company.
| white-flame wrote:
| > Forget the rest of the trash on Facebook
|
| The thing is, Facebook actively pushes the trash at you,
| because trash content monetizes the best.
|
| The only effective avoidance mechanism is to not use it (unless
| there's some facebook-specific browser plugin that strips it
| all out).
| megaman821 wrote:
| Claims like these hurt your case against Facebook. For most
| people Facebook shows completely innocuous stuff. I have
| absolutely nothing political timeline, and the only political
| thing I have seen in 5 years was by an Aunt (who I muted).
| For those who love heated political debates and conspiracy
| theories, Facebook will serve up that content (trash). Other
| people hear about all the awful stuff on Facebook, check
| their feed, see pictures of their grand-babies, and wonder
| what the heck everyone is talking about.
| pesfandiar wrote:
| It may be easier for adults to see those highlight reels for
| what they are, and minimize the feelings of inadequacy and
| envy. At this point though, it's pretty much established that
| they do harm young adults and teenagers.
| tombert wrote:
| While I don't really follow any food social media, I've
| certainly sent pictures of strange food I've bought or made to
| my wife or parents. Food is literally one of the most universal
| things on earth, so it can be interesting if I go to a country
| and try a dish I've never had before, and to send pictures in
| the process.
|
| I never really understood shitting on people posting food pics.
| How exactly is it hurting anyone?
| Pxtl wrote:
| Right? My pandemic hobby was cocktails. Never even tried
| drinking anything more complicated than a screwdriver before,
| but fell down the cocktail youtube rabbit hole because of "how
| to drink".
|
| So, over the course of a year I made a hundred different
| cocktails and blogged my experiences on my blog, twitter, and
| Facebook. Most of the cocktails were simple 3-ingredient things
| based on what I had available, but a few were elaborate messes
| like eggnog or a Ramos gin fizz.
|
| I had my neighbors coming over to me when I was outside
| thanking me for the cocktail blogging and saying it was one of
| their favourite things to see on Facebook, and asked me to keep
| posting them.
|
| Social media doesn't have to be terrible.
| wesapien wrote:
| Agreed. Personal responsibility is always a factor. Some
| people game the system by raising the victim flag which makes
| them a protected class and the idea that they had a hand in
| the situation is not talked about cuz victim blaming.
| chickenfries wrote:
| I agree with you that I wish social media was full of more
| posts like this, but foodgrams and humble brags as you put it
| are also one of the reasons I avoid social media these days.
| Seeing a feed of the best moments of other peoples lives leaves
| me feeling depressed. "Comparison is the thief of joy." I'm
| happy for my friends, but seeing it all collected in one place
| makes my own life feel inadequate. I'm much happier when I
| avoid social media.
| darkerside wrote:
| It's strange... I thought we were wired as a species to live
| vicariously, to feel joy when others are blessed, and feel
| pain when they suffer. You're not the only one that doesn't
| get that out of Facebook... Why? Is it the quantity? The
| format? What turns it into a place of covetousness and
| bitterness?
| dclowd9901 wrote:
| It's the bias. You _only_ see the best moments out of the
| lives of others. When watching TV or movies, we used to
| become depressed about comparing ourselves to celebrities
| and their silly TV lives, until some of the sheen of
| Hollywood has been torn down to reveal how utterly awful
| achieving and keeping a 6-pack of abs can be. Or how 6
| broke idiots could never actually afford a huge flat in
| NYC. Now I think people see it for what it is, and it
| doesn't depress them anymore.
|
| But seeing people who are your peers, who have mostly
| followed the same paths as you being far happier and living
| much full and rich lives (by appearance), and _only_ seeing
| that, I think, becomes a subtle reminder of your own
| failings.
|
| We just need to see some of that sheen taken down. If,
| somehow, we saw _all_ of the shit people go through in
| their lives, and not just the good, maybe social media
| would be way different.
|
| Personally, I find it incredibly shallow to post about food
| you're eating or places you're visiting. That's just money,
| and you might as well just take a picture of the money
| you're spending. I prefer to see things people make in my
| feed (art, woodworking, metalworking, electronics, etc.).
| It impresses and inspires me to see people out there making
| the world better with their minds and bodies, not just
| consuming.
| lapetitejort wrote:
| Because people only share happy moments on Facebook. When
| you're catching up with someone, you're probably in a
| "normal" state of mind. They'll share a happy moment and
| the mood will spike up, then drop to baseline. Then you'll
| share a sad moment and the mood will spike down, return to
| baseline, etc. Facebook is always happy, never normal,
| never sad (unless it's in some way a humblebrag. "Ugh had
| to put in 20 hours of overtime at my killer job"). Imagine
| living in the crest of a manic depressive's life, forever.
| That's Facebook.
| pmontra wrote:
| Maybe the distance and the volume? I belong to some
| whatsapp and Telegram groups with people I know and I meet
| with at least every few months. We share stuff, even
| foodgrams. It's ok to hear from them. I can't just cope
| with all the stuff posted by some people I know but I
| didn't meet with for years. There are too many of them. I
| need time to live my life so I gave up Facebook, downsized
| my network and do things with people I meet.
| Unklejoe wrote:
| > feel joy when others are blessed, and feel pain when they
| suffer.
|
| Most people will probably acknowledge that it's more
| complicated than that. I think it might have to do with how
| easily comparable the other person's life is to our own.
|
| I can't explain it well, but here's an example:
|
| I saw a video of a child surprising their step-dad with
| paperwork for the official name change (kid accepting the
| Dad's last name). The Dad cried out of joy.
|
| The video made me feel good.
|
| On the other hand, seeing someone that I graduated
| highschool with getting promoted and being more successful
| than me makes me jealous.
|
| Why? Because he has something and I don't, but would be
| within the realm of possibility to achieve. This behavior
| can also be observed in monkeys, so I don't question it too
| much.
| notsureaboutpg wrote:
| Why would we be hardwired for that? People for milennia
| have understood human beings are hardwired to "sin" and to
| be covetous and deceitful and it was through exercise
| (spiritual, mental, whatever you call it) and discipline
| and fear of being held accountable for our actions in this
| life that we would overcome our base (called base for a
| reason) desires.
| pasquinelli wrote:
| that's a very simplistic idea of humanity. yes, people can
| feel joy when others are blessed, but they can feel
| anything else they can feel also. surely you're familiar
| with envy at least.
| 6gvONxR4sf7o wrote:
| It's one thing to feel joy when others do. But when
| everything's joy, then it's just normalcy. But when you
| know it isn't _really_ the case that everything 's joy,
| then the appearance of it comes off as fake. Because it is
| fake. Then you feel jaded. But we also can't help but have
| a part of us that thinks "no, this _is_ normal. "
|
| There's also the asynchronous nature. If you're out with
| friends and hear about their engagement after the fact
| (among other catching up), that's one thing. But when
| you're sitting on the couch lonely and see photos from
| moments after the engagement (and nothing else), it's just
| that much more of a gap.
|
| Then throw in everyone's highlights with their outrage and
| some random shared clickbait (fwd:fwd:fwd:fwd:You won't
| believe what this evil politician did!), and it's just
| toxic.
| mumblemumble wrote:
| Facebook isn't doing anything new. This sort of phenomenon
| is something of a universal human experience. For example,
| "Keeping up with the Joneses" is a phrase that's been in
| the English language for at least a century. All social
| media does is crank its input gain as high as it will go.
| chickenfries wrote:
| It's definitely the format and the quantity for me. Seeing
| an old friend in person and having them tell me about their
| life and accomplishments, even showing me pictures, does
| not make me feel the same way. I think it's also the fact
| that I turn to social media when I'm feeling lonely, so
| seeing a feed of people at their best moments, on vacation
| with friends, getting married, having children, etc...
| makes me feel even more lonely and isolated. Also, social
| media is full of people that I have lost touch with, who
| never check in with me or reach out to see how I'm doing.
| I've found that I feel much more connected by reaching out
| to old friends one on one and catching up with them via
| texting or phone calls. Likes and comments just don't cut
| it.
| bjornlouser wrote:
| "having them tell me ... does not make me feel the same
| way... "
|
| You don't get the warm fuzzies when someone tries to
| harvest intimacy across hundreds of their relationships
| simultaneously with a post? Weird.
| allenu wrote:
| I feel the same way, and to me it's all about the
| authenticity. The context of social media takes away from
| the authenticity of the post. Someone may genuinely
| _just_ want to share some dish that they just created,
| but in the context of social media, you can never be sure
| if they 're posting it because of that, or posting it for
| the easy likes or easy engagement. Social media has
| commodified human interaction.
|
| I forget where I read it, but it's similar to the idea
| that if someone you love makes a meal for you, at the end
| of it, you don't ask "how much do I owe you?" and break
| out your wallet. It's distasteful. Likewise, you don't do
| someone for a loved one or friend and afterwards say,
| "well that will be $X".
|
| Posting on social media has a reward of sharing and
| liking, and as a result, to me, it turns human
| interaction into an exchange. (And I will admit that
| there is an element to that already, in terms of owing
| people favors etc., but the "bookkeeping" that we do is
| generally in our heads and is hard to quantify, which
| makes it a bit fuzzier and less commodified.)
| nabajour wrote:
| I think also that the format is different, the link
| between people is not the same on social media posts.
| There is a difference between seeing something
| interesting, thinking of a friend who might be interested
| and sending it to him with a personal message like "check
| this out, it made me think of you, you might like it" and
| just putting something on display for people to see it,
| and add like to it to give you some small pride and some
| endorphin reinforcement of the posting behaviour.
|
| It seems to me that the direction of the thinking goes
| the other way: in one, you think of a friend and contact
| him, in the other, you think of yourself, show yourself
| to the world and people send you likes.
|
| When I thought of this, it seemed to me that social media
| is often some sort of "narcissistic exposure of oneself"
| and encourages this type of behaviour from me and I
| didn't like it. This plus the fact that I didn't like
| Facebook's behaviour with it's user's data made me delete
| my account, and I didn't miss it since. If I think of
| friends, I have other means of contacting them that have
| a more personal feel.
| notatoad wrote:
| For me, it's the dishonesty of facebook and instagram. The
| whole culture seems to be based around lying about
| misrepresenting how good your life is.
|
| I love seeing a post about something that made a friend
| happy, but so much of the content on facebook is so
| obviously _not_ an honest post about something that made
| somebody happy, but rather something they felt should have
| made them happy, or something that somebody else would be
| jealous of, or worst of all a brand trying to co-opt the
| "something that made me happy" style of posting, that it's
| ruined the few honest moments of joy.
| pasquinelli wrote:
| i also avoid social media, but for the opposite reason. i'm
| not bothered seeing everyone else's greatest hits, but
| curating my life and thoughts to present to an audience was
| wearing me down, and when i finally realized that's what i
| was doing, i got off it.
|
| presumably there are some personality types that social media
| works well for, as opposed to personality types that work
| well for social media, of which there are clearly a lot.
| mikepurvis wrote:
| Maybe it's not the healthiest thing, but I kind of enjoy
| having that as a secondary motivation, especially for
| projects I'm on the edge for-- things like bread baking,
| kombucha making, small electronics repair, etc. If I know I
| can take a few pictures and tell a fun story around it,
| then it can be the motivation to get something started or
| power it through.
|
| I guess the one boundary is that I don't generally mine my
| interactions with my kids for internet kudos-- I don't want
| my camera in their faces when we're at the park or reading
| a book, making them feel like I'm only there spending time
| with them to score internet kudos later.
| mikepurvis wrote:
| How do you suppose Tiktok fits into all this? On the one
| hand, it's still a glamorous best-of reel, but it's also a
| lot more silliness, with sketch comedy and various remix
| formats (lipsync, duet, etc) being a big thing, not to
| mention significant subcommunities posting earnestly about
| topics like self esteem, mental health, etc (and with the
| needed community-management tools to enable the resulting
| discussion to not just become a Twitter-style free for all).
|
| I'm not a super active user, but as an observer, I do wonder
| if much of it is pushing those same buttons but in a perhaps
| more subtle way-- like a lot of "wellness" creators who
| cultivate an apparently authentic persona from which to
| deliver a never ending stream of motivational you're-worth-it
| type content meant to encourage and uplift, but that
| ultimately rings a bit hollow.
| bentcorner wrote:
| I think community plays a huge part. I'm not a tiktok user
| but I get the impression that a lot of the early tiktok
| users were heavily creative users. It's like a flywheel.
|
| As these sites/services gain more popularity communities
| tend to splinter and it's up to the service to keep things
| going in whatever direction they want to via things like
| the fyp algorithm.
| sysadm1n wrote:
| Stick to messenger apps. It's tough, I know, because of network
| effects, but I managed to _convert_ about 20 friends of mine to
| use Signal. I deliberately avoid Facebook Messenger and
| Whatsapp since they can be intercepted easily, and if you 're
| caught making a joke about ISIS, the Whatsapp police can
| unencrypt your messages which kinda sucks.
|
| Instant messages are more personal and you're not broadcasting
| your life to 5000 randos, who could potentially weaponize that
| data if they wanted (potential employer saw your meme about
| binge drinking & alcohol consumption? Too bad).
| cameronperot wrote:
| > if you're caught making a joke about ISIS, the Whatsapp
| police can unencrypt your messages
|
| Would you please clarify this? I know that messages flagged
| by the recipient can be read by moderators [1], but I'm not
| exactly sure what you're getting at here.
|
| I'm not defending WhatsApp (I've advocated for Signal since
| the days of TextSecure), but AFAIK the messages are encrypted
| using the Signal protocol, so I'm not sure how the "WhatsApp
| police" would be able to determine if you said something
| specific without the recipient reporting it.
|
| [1] https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2021/09/whatsapp-end-to-
| end-...
| sysadm1n wrote:
| Yes I was referring to this when I meant the `Whatsapp
| police`. I actually tried to dig up the article to backup
| my claims, but was at a loss, since I didn't bookmark it.
|
| So in this case we have Whatsapp users essentially
| _snitching_ on each other and getting posts flagged for the
| purposes of law enforcement, and having those message
| unencrypted. Whilst this is largely helpful, there is the
| potential for false positives (e.g a meme about ISIS
| getting flagged as 'extremist' and 'violent')
|
| It's a tricky one, because although the feature may help
| save lives and such, I am just uncomfortable with it, since
| the E2E encryption is slightly broken because of this
| mechanism in place.
| neogodless wrote:
| In essence, the algorithms created to give each user the feed
| _they_ want has, in fact, given every user the feed the
| _masses_ want.
|
| That is to say, some people want real, individual, original and
| ultimately personal content. But the overwhelming activity and
| reactions to content has driven that out, and left us only with
| "mass appeal" - the things that get reactions and shares.
| cronix wrote:
| I'm getting kind of tired of the narrative that "x is
| evil/bad/harmful, but I'm too weak (we won't admit addiction) to
| not use x. Everyone I know uses x. Government needs to regulate x
| (so I don't have to change my ways)."
|
| I deleted my account over a year ago now, because I _do_ view
| them as evil and _do_ cause overall societal harm. It 's not life
| ending. You'll adjust and then wonder why you didn't do it
| sooner. I made the choice for myself. The only people you'll lose
| touch with were superficial relationships to begin with. Do you
| honestly care what that dude you went to gradeschool with but
| haven't seen for 30 years does? Real relationships don't depend
| on x platform. All they require is you, and the other person.
| heavyset_go wrote:
| These are trillion dollar operations that hire teams of
| behavioral scientists to design user experiences that "increase
| engagement" by exploiting psychology in all the same ways
| exploitative industries like the gambling and advertising
| industries do. It might even be worse as interactive computer
| services are not regulated in the same ways that gambling,
| advertising, or alcohol companies are regulated.
|
| This is like complaining that people who can't stop smoking
| cigarettes are just whining unless they quit themselves.
| Billion dollar industries spent decades formulating cigarettes
| to be as maximally addictive as they could possibly make them,
| and cigarettes are the #1 cause of preventable mortality, and
| kill about 500,000 people in the US each year. Despite those
| obvious, clear and unavoidable consequences, millions of people
| still struggle to stop smoking.
| klyrs wrote:
| Good for you, and, I quit too. But the reason I joined is that
| I miss out on a lot of in-person interactions, because friends
| of mine use fb to invite folks to events. What you're
| describing as a "superficial relationship" was actually
| "membership of a few small groups." Interacting with those
| people was a positive in my life, and I miss them. It's not
| just okay, but actually healthy, to have relationships that
| aren't lifelong and deep.
|
| I bemoan the loss of "church community" despite never having
| been a churchgoer. It's nice to show up, blend in, make time
| with a few familiar faces, and leave. Non-intense social
| interactions are good. People who only have intense social
| interactions tend to have bad social anxiety, because their
| brain isn't accustomed to anything between zero and 100. The
| good part about fb is that it can be used to facilitate that.
| I'd happily have a profile on the Facebook Events platform, if
| it existed as a separate product. But since it necessarily
| comes with all the other baggage, it's healthier for me to miss
| out.
| bjt2n3904 wrote:
| Slight nitpick.
|
| The argument isn't, "so I don't have to change my behaviors."
|
| The argument is, _OTHER_ people are too weak to change their
| behaviors, so we need to have the government regulate _THEIR_
| behavior. (The greater good.)
|
| It's bad enough to be lazy and want someone else to fix your
| problems. It's almost worse to decide you know what other
| people's problems are, and decide what needs to happen for
| them. (Or phrased differently... What needs to happen _to_
| them.)
| munk-a wrote:
| No - since this is a social network this isn't all about
| personal responsibility. People hate-use facebook because
| everyone hate-uses facebook. There is no sane alternative
| because everyone needs to hate-use the same platform to be on
| it with everyone else.
| osigurdson wrote:
| What is insane about making a phone call or sending an
| email? FB is not the only way to communicate.
| mistermann wrote:
| I think it is plausible that a different kind of social
| media could be created that does not involve hate (at least
| not in the same quantities), that some people would find to
| be preferable to the current toxic ones everyone is one. It
| wouldn't happen overnight, but if no one ever builds
| anything, we may be stuck on these forever, or until we
| tear society part.
| 6gvONxR4sf7o wrote:
| I'd take that further. When I felt lonely sometimes, I'd boot
| up social media and see what people are up to. Now, without
| social media, when I feel lonely I'll text friends.
| Unsurprisingly, it's more healthy. And when I reach out more,
| they reach out more. And instead of getting a button click
| invitation, people will text or call with an invitation and
| we'll actually talk a bit too. Turns out them telling me a
| thing and me telling them I like it is more fulfilling than
| facebook telling me they did a thing, and me clicking a like
| button.
| uptownfunk wrote:
| such an under-rated comment!!
| CJefferson wrote:
| Isn't "x is evil/bad/harmful. Government needs to regulate x."
| basically the entire purpose of society?
|
| I enjoy living in a society, and not having to worry about if
| every food I eat might poison me, or every bridge I walk over
| might fall down. If we decide, as a society, it would be better
| to ban Facebook, why shouldn't we?
| themacguffinman wrote:
| If we decide as a society that certain races are
| evil/bad/harmful and should have fewer rights, would that
| make it okay?
|
| Just because a lot of people agree on something doesn't make
| it right or good. I'm not sure where you get the idea that
| society is just a platform for banning unpopular things. A
| lot of modern civics was designed specifically to counter
| that actually, things like constitutional laws,
| representative democracy, high courts, political parties;
| they all serve to counterbalance and moderate the pure
| majority opinion on how to run society.
|
| You know, I also enjoy living in a society and not having to
| worry if any media I want to use or any business I ran might
| be banned because someone somewhere didn't like it.
| heavyset_go wrote:
| People can't choose their race, and one's race doesn't
| impact other people negatively. People can and do choose to
| engage in exploitative business practices for profit,
| despite any negative externalities those practices have on
| other people.
|
| We, as a society, have tomes of legislation and case law
| that regulate business practices and their negative impacts
| on individuals or society as whole.
| passivate wrote:
| Banning things is a bit short-sighted and misses the point.
| IMHO, Its better to think about types of long-term incentive
| structures that we can create so that more companies will be
| incentivized to do the right thing - or at least behave in a
| way that we agree as a society.
| standardUser wrote:
| "The only people you'll lose touch with were superficial
| relationships to begin with"
|
| That's extraordinarily presumptuous to assume you understand
| the contours of a billion strangers human connections.
| munk-a wrote:
| The issue is primarily that some folks have moved all of their
| online connections onto facebook - they've put all of their
| eggs in that basket. If you want to keep up with them at all
| you need to at least have the bearest presence on the platform.
|
| This is less about that dude from highschool and more about
| your cousin.
| archsurface wrote:
| You want to keep in touch with the cousin who won't bother
| with you if you leave facebook?
| cronix wrote:
| > If you want to keep up with them at all you need to at
| least have the bearest presence on the platform.
|
| So, if you texted "Hey cousin, it's been awhile, how's it
| going?" you wouldn't get a reply?
| munk-a wrote:
| To what number? The one they have now or the one they
| switch to without telling anyone in a few months?
| dexterdog wrote:
| People don't change numbers very often. Most people never
| do.
| heavyset_go wrote:
| I think this is a class and age thing. A lot of less
| wealthy and young people use prepaid wireless carriers
| because of cost, and end up just getting new phone
| numbers when they buy a new shitty phone or switch to a
| plan that's a better deal for them.
|
| It costs money to port numbers between carriers, and it's
| a pain to set up when you can just pop in a SIM card and
| start making calls/texts right away with your new number.
| stemlord wrote:
| People don't change numbers that often. Unless your
| cousin is a drug dealer in which case you were only on
| their burner phone, meaning you must have just been a
| customer to them, and not even an important one.
| wang_li wrote:
| This sounds like a you and your cousin problem. It seems
| pretty strange that it would be suggested that the
| government step in to regulate a third party because you
| and your cousin can't manage to stay in touch.
| kansface wrote:
| > Real relationships don't depend on x platform. All they
| require is you, and the other person.
|
| Hear Hear!
|
| > Most Canadians believe Facebook harms their mental health
|
| Then don't use it!
| colinmhayes wrote:
| The problem is that you can't stop other people from using X
| and their choices affect you.
| stemlord wrote:
| I agree, most people are just weak, full stop.
| [deleted]
| cm2187 wrote:
| In fact I don't know anyone in my close or more distant friend
| circles who haven't abbandonned facebook in one way or another.
| I am puzzled by facebook still being the centre of attention
| (for this, control of news, influence on elections, influence
| on vaccination).
| whimsicalism wrote:
| and Instagram?
|
| I find this "I don't know anyone who uses FB anymore" line to
| often be disingenuous when it's uttered by someone in their
| 20s or early 30s.
| osigurdson wrote:
| Completely agree. If you don't like a service, stop using it.
| [deleted]
| arduinomancer wrote:
| I dunno
|
| On one hand I get it because having a global centralized media
| source running bleeding edge optimization algorithms against
| humans is highly unprecedented till recently.
|
| But at the same time I don't like the trend in recent years to
| completely "minimize individual responsibility"
|
| It makes sense why these narratives are popular too.
|
| It means I don't have to admit my lack of discipline.
| throwawaybchr wrote:
| Most Canadians can stop using it then
|
| This entire topic is very silly. Parents are free to forbid their
| kids from using it. Adults can make their own decisions.
|
| What it is starting to become is that people want _other people_
| to stop using it because they want _them_ to consume the content
| that they see fit.
| distortedsignal wrote:
| Most important paragraph, IMO:
|
| > Conducted Oct. 8 to 10, the online poll surveyed 1,545
| Canadians and cannot be assigned a margin of error because
| internet-based polls are not considered random samples.
|
| It's a pretty good sample-size, but we don't get error bars. I
| don't remember if there was anything FB-critical happening that
| week (when did the study about teen mental health come out?), but
| the timeframe could also affect the survey.
| not-elite wrote:
| The formula for error bars under the traditional Binomial
| assumption is: +/- sqrt(p * (1-p) / N)
|
| So the errors are around +/- 1% for most values of p in this
| article. The article (rightly) points out that the binomial
| assumption is not reasonable given the survey method.
|
| https://stats.stackexchange.com/questions/29641/standard-err...
| klyrs wrote:
| The traditional binomial assumption assumes independence of
| the samples, as the accepted answer states. The authors are
| acknowledging that this assumption does not hold.
| notafraudster wrote:
| It's an odd disclaimer. If it's a quota-based sample then
| the performance in terms of nominal coverage is going to
| look similar to a probabilistic sample (especially given
| the current environment for probabilistic samples, which is
| quite poor). Probabilistic samples don't report design
| effects or adjust MOEs to reflect them either, the norm is
| just to report a classical normal approximate binomial
| confidence interval (e.g. +/- 1/sqrt(n)) even when a real
| design effect exists.
|
| My guess is the reason for this disclaimer is that it's not
| a quota sample, it's just literally a completely undirected
| opt-in survey and there's no reason to believe this is
| anything resembling a representative sample, probabilistic
| or not.
| cblconfederate wrote:
| it 's not just missing error bars, this is not a sample,
| period. so it's not something reliable.
| xdavidliu wrote:
| it _is_ a sample. It 's just not an _unbiased_ sample [1].
|
| [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sample_(statistics)#Kinds_o
| f_s...
| hcrisp wrote:
| Very unbiased. Only sampled people who were online and
| ostensibly only those who used Facebook. Since maybe ~60%
| of people use Facebook, I don't think the results speak for
| _all_ Canadians. If it did that's saying a lot for
| secondhand effects of social media platforms.
| karmanyaahm wrote:
| Not totally sure, but aren't people with extreme feelings
| more likely to answer a survey? Voluntary or nonresponse
| biases
| itsoktocry wrote:
| > _Not totally sure, but..._
|
| This kind of discourse is annoying.
|
| You don't get "points" for making some hypothetical
| claim. If you think there is something wrong with an
| analysis, demonstrate it. Isn't that what "pro-science"
| people do?
| passivate wrote:
| Its this sort of sensational/half-true reporting that makes
| people lose faith in media brands.
| unglaublich wrote:
| prisoner's dilemma: gain income while lying or let others
| drain your income by lying?
| itsoktocry wrote:
| > _Its this sort of sensational /half-true reporting that
| makes people lose faith in media brands._
|
| If you think not reporting error bars is what makes people
| "lose faith in media brands", you are so far away from
| reality I'm not sure what to tell you.
|
| But how about you put aside the statistical nuance of this
| for 10 seconds and acknowledge the fact that real people,
| when asked, actually consider Facebook -- a piece of
| software-- harmful. They are _saying_ that. What does that
| mean?
| sigstoat wrote:
| > But how about you put aside the statistical nuance of
| this for 10 seconds and acknowledge the fact that real
| people, when asked, actually consider Facebook -- a piece
| of software-- harmful. They are saying that. What does that
| mean?
|
| we can probably find 1,545 people who think everything you
| love and hold dear is ruining the world.
|
| what does that mean?
| passivate wrote:
| >If you think not reporting error bars is what makes people
| "lose faith in media brands", you are so far away from
| reality I'm not sure what to tell you.
|
| "If you think.." - Why not ask me what I think instead of
| assuming and putting up a strawman?
|
| >when asked, actually consider Facebook -- a piece of
| software-- harmful. They are saying that. What does that
| mean?
|
| I don't consider opinion polls as pathways to truths.
| They're interesting data points, but not some kind of
| absolute truth. Human opinions change, perspectives change,
| often multiple times when provided new/different data.
| Opinions can also be in conflict with each other. We're not
| automations or pinnacles of logical consistency. You can
| hand-wave it away as "nuance", but it isn't. Its
| fundamental. It's messy.
| kyleblarson wrote:
| I'd say most sane people don't only believe that social media in
| general is unhealthy, they know it. Some might push for
| regulation but I would just suggest these people quit it all. I
| did so a few years ago (well I guess with the exception of HN)
| and haven't looked back. Sure I might not learn about a high
| school acquaintance's new baby or the like but the people I truly
| care about know how to get in touch with me and vice versa.
| passivate wrote:
| I use it to promote my hobbies (digital art, photography). I
| don't believe it is unhealthy in general. Calling people who
| don't agree with you insane is not really a great way to have a
| healthy conversation.
| rtoway wrote:
| Last I checked, studies on the issue of social media and mental
| health are pretty mixed and inconclusive. But it is a popular
| belief regardless
| dylan604 wrote:
| It's easy to click the button for the response you think people
| want to hear. Polls mean nothing except for the people being
| paid to run them.
| newaccount2021 wrote:
| as someone born and educated in Canada, I must say that as a
| nation they are some of the most feeble-minded people on Earth
|
| "being Canadian" has devolved down to a pathetic fake-smugness
| predicated on cherry-picked comparisons with the US. there is
| NOTHING else to being a Canadian in 2021.
|
| Canada is already the worst choice for businesses in the age of
| NAFTA. Zuck should just pull FB out of Canada entirely and leave
| Canadians with the CBC...the net impact on profits will be
| negligible at best, and long term it will benefit FB to be rid of
| these crybabies
|
| as for everyone else, if you don't have the willpower to log out
| of FB, you're just pathetic on so many levels and you deserve
| degraded mental health
| trapatsas wrote:
| What mental health?
| kazinator wrote:
| The title is falsified within a few sentences of the story, where
| it becomes clear that:
|
| Most Canadians believe that Facebook harms the mental health of
| _others_ ; their _own_ use of Facebook is healthy and fine.
|
| Facebook issues are everyone else's problem, not mine, believes
| the average Facebook user.
| 999900000999 wrote:
| I'm so happy to see awareness around the negative mental health
| effects of social media. You also don't get all that much from
| it, back when I was heavy into social media I was miserable,
| online dating never brought me a worthwhile person. The rare
| times I'd actually meet a real person, it was almost certain to
| be someone who was 30 plus and not interested in working.
|
| Deleted all my online dating profiles, limited my social media
| usage and I was making fantastic friends and meeting amazing
| girls in real life. This was very good for my mental health,
| during some of my really dark moments I'd spend hours per day on
| Reddit and Facebook arguing with other angry people. We don't
| need to be angry, you don't need to argue.
|
| You don't need to give the Match group $60 a month to chat with
| bots. You can still wave at someone at a concert and ask if they
| want drinks after the show.
| Unklejoe wrote:
| It always seemed pretty obvious to me.
|
| Everyone is fake on social media, but it's not always apparent
| that it's fake (it it was, then it would defeat the purpose).
|
| What happens when it seems like literally everyone is living a
| better life than you? You feel like shit.
| uptownfunk wrote:
| Repeat after me:
|
| "I _can_ be happy and thrive without social media. "
|
| Here is how you become a billionaire today-
|
| Step 1: Create some thing people want to indulge in, whether or
| not it is healthy or good for them (as long as it's legal).
|
| Step 2: Convince them that it _is_ good for them.
|
| Step 3: Acquire anyone else who tries to do the same or squash
| them out aggressively.
|
| Rinse and repeat.
| palidanx wrote:
| What I've realized about Facebook is that there is no way I can
| convey a really convey anything really meaningful in such a short
| post.
|
| What I started doing is writing a quarterly e-mail newsletter to
| about 80 of my closest friends and family about details thoughts
| I've had about life, travel, and personal experiences.
|
| Some friends have told me I should write a blog and put all my
| thoughts out there on the Internet, but I think this kind of
| defeats the whole purpose to share something intimate to a
| smaller crowd that the general Internet will never see.
| karmanyaahm wrote:
| Maybe voluntary response bias?
| secondcoming wrote:
| Twitter is worse
| intrasight wrote:
| FB happens to be the platform by which people share. In an
| alternative universe where "ShareBook" was the dominant micro-
| blobbing platform, that would have been the target of these
| critiques. Depressed people says something about those people and
| about our culture in general.
| RealityVoid wrote:
| I used to think, untill recently, that Facebook was just a tool
| and all this hatred was overblown. After all, I modulated my use
| of it just fine. My usage is sparse, and I use messenger to talk
| with people I know, it kept us together. I can see how community
| and bringing old friends together is precious.
|
| But, recently, I realized someone I used to be very close has
| mental problems. Undiagnosed, but there is no other way I can
| explain his behaviour to myself. Obsessive behaviour, can only
| talk about his conspiratorial obsession, erratic, spends most of
| his time "learning" about a specific conspiracy. And I see how
| Facebook is exacerbating this. I see how these things are
| poisoning his mind, fantasies weaved by other mentally ill
| people. It's just sad, when I thought about it and dawned on me
| most of those _wild_ conspiracy theories are people that need
| help feeding each other's sickness.
|
| And then I look on my dad's wall, and saw the same hatred and
| resentment growing, and it scared me, the possibility he might
| drift even more this way.
|
| Now I changed my mind. I think it is harmful and it does induce
| bad states in people that would otherwise be better, or at
| least... Surrounded by better support systems. But I still think
| it's not _just_ Facebook. It's a confluence of factors.
| whimsicalism wrote:
| I think FB is probably bad, but I've also noticed that people
| have a tendency to blame delusional mental illnesses on
| whatever a person was going through/up to at the time it onset
| when it is often more like a timer went off.
| RealityVoid wrote:
| Yes, most likely the ilness would be there even without
| Facebook. But the platform enables some destructive behavior
| while in the real life, I hope, more productive support
| structures could exist.
|
| While mental illness is something you might be biologically
| predisposed, the outcome can vary wildly with or without
| support structures and good help. And I think on this end
| Facebook is profoundly destructive.
| retrac wrote:
| A person's mental illness can have drastically different
| outcomes depending on who they are surrounded by. Even before
| Facebook there were plenty of cases where people exploited
| the emotionally and socially naive or unstable, for their own
| gain or amusement. I worry social media can enable something
| similar.
| mensetmanusman wrote:
| This happened to a family member, they had undiagnosed
| schizophrenia and started posting craaaaaazy stuff on YouTube,
| got a following of fellow like-minded folk that only made
| things worse until it all exploded into a huge melt down /
| insane asylum situation. Crazy times.
| legitster wrote:
| I know Facebook is the great evil, but we really need to start
| looking at the mental health impacts of _all_ social media. The
| unhappiest people I know are not on Facebook - they are
| religiously devoted to Twitter and Reddit. Heck, I 'd like to
| know what sort of damage this post right here is doing to me.
|
| This is our generation's smoking but everyone only wants to know
| how harmful Marlboros are.
|
| _Edit:_ Please upvote this more. I need to feel like my views
| are validated.
| ferdowsi wrote:
| Reddit is an interesting one. Since it's an anonymous
| experience, I guess it'd be the same issues with any internet
| community. It can be stressful to see seemingly abhorrent
| viewpoints in such concentrated numbers. And it can be
| stressful when you feel a community is turning against you,
| even if your connections to that community are extremely
| tendentious.
| legitster wrote:
| I think Reddit is uniquely harmful to its users in several
| ways, maybe even moreso than Facebook:
|
| - Users get an intense, one-sided parasocial relationship but
| with no upside of even communicating directly with each other
|
| - The hivemind effect is very real, and using Reddit often
| gives people a very false sense of superiority of their
| knowledge on any given topics
|
| - Misinformation is rife. Even outside of the conspiracy
| hubs. It's amazing how many of the "front page" posts are
| often misleading or slanted
|
| - Astroturfing and content farming is even more prevalent but
| with less moderation.
| uDontKnowMe wrote:
| It's interesting you call relationships on Reddit para-
| social, I don't know if that quite fits the word because
| Reddit is more of a two-way reciprocal relationship between
| commenters. Perhaps Twitter fits that description better
| since you get a lot of power users like Trump and other
| celebrities which broadcast out to their followers but
| don't typically respond to normies.
| United857 wrote:
| Nextdoor is another example. At least with FB or Twitter, it's
| a opt-in model -- you have to friend or follow someone to see
| their posts. With Nextdoor anyone can post to their neighbors,
| so (at least where I live) many people use it as a soapbox to
| air any trivial complaint/grump/vendetta to hundreds or
| thousands of neighbors; I see a lot of toxic flamewars on
| there.
|
| Ultimately I think social media is an amplifier, taking
| whatever individual or collective insecurities that were
| latent, and just projecting them for better or worse.
|
| Disclosure: FB employee but only speaking for myself
| [deleted]
| croes wrote:
| As long as hackernews hasn't a news feed to keep you invested,
| as long the damage is negligible.
| wellthisishn wrote:
| We could start by calling it what it is -- antisocial. Spending
| time on media content aggregators is an antisocial activity.
| Not that spending some time on an antisocial activity is
| inherently bad... studying and research are also antisocial
| activities. But let's not call something "social" when it is
| the antithesis of anything that could be considered as such. I
| think this could be a decent start!
| Fordec wrote:
| Antisocial - "when a person consistently shows no regard for
| right and wrong and ignores the rights and feelings of
| others".
|
| I don't think antisocial fits as a descriptor, at all. When I
| think of antisocial behavior I think of graffiti or arson and
| other property damage without regard for the owners or the
| public sphere.
|
| I think the word you're looking for is asocial.
| legitster wrote:
| I think it would be one thing if they were just aggregators.
| It's the community aspect that's harmful - it's clearly
| addicting and gives people the feeling of being social with
| fewer of the benefits.
| white-flame wrote:
| What do you define "social media" as? If it's communication
| kept within circles of family, friends, colleagues, and
| enthusiast/interest groups, I really don't see much problem
| with it, just as forums/blogs/etc before it.
|
| The two big problems poisoning this well are:
|
| 1) monetization usually reaches for manipulating people's
| personal socialization stream, and
|
| 2) public broadcast of personal content to the feeds of
| strangers, usually the most inflammatory subset because of
| point 1.
| heurisko wrote:
| I think twitter is the most toxic.
|
| I have been uncomfortable on twitter to find enclaves where
| people are mentally ill, and have found others to exacerbate
| their behaviour and thinking.
| Joeri wrote:
| I see toxicity not as twitter's problem, but as its feature.
| I go to twitter to find out people's gut reactions to current
| events, and in that role it is a uniquely capable and
| succinct resource.
|
| What you will not find there is rational and reasonable
| debate, but imho that's not what twitter is for.
| whimsicalism wrote:
| This also exists on FB. If anything, the only reason people
| are aware of it on twitter is because it's not as much of an
| enclave as it is on FB.
|
| See, for instance, "cryptic pregnancy" communities on FB,
| which are definitely hotbeds of mental illness.
| munk-a wrote:
| Twitter, at least, is utterly worthless and entirely
| voluntary. Nobody uses the platform to announce or coordinate
| family events or to reach out to loved ones when they need
| help. I have a mostly inactive facebook account in case
| family messages me on there and I need to help out - I don't
| have a twitter account because I don't find brigading to be a
| worthwhile activity. I'd say with a moderate level of
| confidence that nothing that's announced on twitter has ever
| been vital to know - if Whirlpool is forced to recall a
| certain dishwasher brand they'll send out emails and
| potentially physical letters - no government agent is going
| to watch them tweet and say "Yup - you just informed the
| public in a responsible manner".
| whimsicalism wrote:
| I completely disagree. There are entire fields of academia
| where effectively the only discussion being held outside of
| papers is on twitter.
|
| Twitter, by a large magnitude, has been the most
| professionally useful social network to me as a knowledge
| worker/researcher.
| munk-a wrote:
| Isn't twitter an extremely inefficient way to convey
| technical information? Why hasn't your specialty broken
| out a self-hosted forum or even, I guess, a heavily
| moderated subreddit?
|
| In my, admittedly very brief, experience with twitter, I
| found it nearly impossible to actually grasp whole
| conversations. Little snippets and snipes get RT'd to the
| sky while the main discussion thread gets forced ever
| downward in the interest sorted feed.
| marricks wrote:
| While I hate FB I also hate headlines like this, why poll the
| public on something the media affects? Just report what findings
| are and the effects.
|
| It's like a couple months ago having headlines saying "more
| American's (USA) are afraid of crime rising than any time in the
| past 20 years!" and crime only rose slightly... it's the cart
| leading the horse.
| amatecha wrote:
| "the online poll surveyed 1,545 Canadians"
|
| Sorry, but 0.00004% [0] of Canadians can't remotely be described
| as "most".
|
| Unfortunately, the qualifying words "survey suggests" was chopped
| off the end of the article title, making it seem far more of an
| authoritative assertion than it really is. :(
|
| [0] 1545 / 38246108 estimated population as per
| https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/daily-quotidien/210929/dq210...
| hk1337 wrote:
| Facebook certainly has a good amount of blame but you also have
| to take some responsibility yourself if you keep logging on every
| day.
| FpUser wrote:
| I think in this particular case the problem is not FB but people
| themselves.
|
| I am Canadian and it does not harm my mental health for a simple
| reason that I simply do not use FB or other "social media". I
| really do not give a hoot about somebody else's lifestyle and
| what they had for dinner.
| angelzen wrote:
| https://www.facebook.com/help/224562897555674
|
| > How do I permanently delete my Facebook account?
| reliablity wrote:
| I stopped using Facebook for over 3 years now and I have been
| happier. I am still connected to friends, family and community
| over whatsapp. WhatsApp is much better because you are only
| connected with your friends, groups and not the whole world.
| hansoolo wrote:
| Do you actually have not stopped using Facebook?
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-10-15 23:00 UTC)