[HN Gopher] Social media addiction linked to cyberbullying ___________________________________________________________________ Social media addiction linked to cyberbullying Author : giuliomagnifico Score : 74 points Date : 2021-03-30 17:44 UTC (5 hours ago) (HTM) web link (news.uga.edu) (TXT) w3m dump (news.uga.edu) | Jaygles wrote: | I wonder if social media had the potential to be a force of good | or if it was doomed from the start. I'd like to run an AB | experiment where social media companies didn't optimize for | engagement. And maybe an AB experiment where they tried to | optimize for healthy usage, even if it harmed engagement. | TheJoYo wrote: | I've been using a chronological order social media for a couple | of years now and I wouldn't trade it for a sorting algo. Sure, | I miss some things that are likely interesting and sometimes I | need to mute some that post too often. I think content tagging | is what people were really asking for when they got "optimized | for engagement." | Nextgrid wrote: | Is there a mainstream social media platform that still | supports a chronological order? Twitter is the closest one | but as far as I know they still periodically reset the feed | to the algorithmic one, overriding your previous decision. | ryandrake wrote: | Old school forums. I'm a member of quite a few hobby- | related forums and they are great. | | Basically anything without crowdsourced voting that affects | placement of the message. That could be obvious things like | reddit posts, and other things like online reviews. | Effortless "likes" and "upvotes" produce the worst feeds. | sefrost wrote: | Strava brought back the chronological feed and seemed to | get a lot of good press for it at the time. | | https://road.cc/content/tech-news/271757-strava-has- | brought-... | renewiltord wrote: | Sure. Instagram was that. They have limiters that will tell you | to take a break, they have a marker that tells you you've | caught up, and the default view is subscriptions-only. | | I only see my friends' stuff on Instagram and it's lovely. | Though they've recently changed to stick random stuff | underneath the last post from a friend which does diminish the | point somewhat. | Syonyk wrote: | I don't think social media was doomed from the start - there | were many years of healthy enough communities (I'm mostly | familiar with LiveJournal in the early 2000s) that didn't have | all the downsides of modern social media. You saw updates in | most-recent-first order, if you refreshed the page you got the | same thing (perhaps with a new update at the top, but it was | easy to tell when you'd caught up), and if you had too much | stuff to read, you figured out how to trim some of it away | ("FRIENDS CUT!"). The cost to operate the infrastructure was | fairly minimal, and it accomplished most of the things we | actually would like from social media without the downsides. | | What we haven't proved is that you can have social media run by | a publicly traded, ad-revenue-funded company without all sorts | of harmful effects (with the main interface being smartphones | with push notifications). That's where all the nasty | "engagement" effects come from - trying to drive eyeballs to | ads to improve revenue. It's very much a zero-sum game - every | pair of eyeballs has 24 hours in the day, so the goal is to | command their attention for as many of those hours as possible. | That's where the evil creeps in. | naravara wrote: | > I'd like to run an AB experiment where social media companies | didn't optimize for engagement. And maybe an AB experiment | where they tried to optimize for healthy usage, even if it | harmed engagement. | | This is just a theory but my fear is that social media that's | optimized for "healthy usage" probably looked more like the | forum and blog culture that social media killed. | | Optimizing for engagement means you basically have a genetic | algorithm on your hands for surfacing the content with the most | "viral-potential." Eventually that stuff eats the healthy parts | of the internet because people inevitably talk about the viral | stuff that's happening, which means your healthy-use forum is | nonetheless revolving around the conversation in the viral | centers. | | From there it's a matter of time before people start going | directly to the viral source to keep up with the context and | conversation. And once they're there, because it optimizes for | engagement, it crowds out their use of everything else. | | So there's a natural selective pressure here. Optimizing for | engagement/addiction gets you a network effect that leads to | overshadowing any other type of socializing. Unless there's | some mechanism to actively select against virality and | engagement they will naturally rise to the top even independent | of ad-impression incentives. | undefined1 wrote: | > The study also found that adolescent males are more likely to | engage in cyberbullying than females, aligning with past studies | that show aggressive behaviors tend to be more male driven. | | for a certain definition of aggression. but social media bullying | is a Mean Girls phenomenon. it's reputation and character | assassination, which is aggressive behavior. male aggression | tends to be physical and they spend more time playing video | games, while females spend more time on social media. as a | result, girls are seeing higher rates of depression compared to | boys. | | here's the research on this topic that Jonathan Haidt and other | academics are maintaining; | | https://docs.google.com/document/d/1w-HOfseF2wF9YIpXwUUtP65-... | Solvitieg wrote: | But if you remove the ability to be physically aggressive, | would you expect the bullying to stop? | abduhl wrote: | What is cyber bullying defined as in the study? | | I kill you in Counter Strike and drop a spray. Were you just | cyber bullied? | | I kill you in COD and call you a newbie via voice. Were you | just cyber bullied? | | I'm on your team in Dota and tell you that you're terrible | and should uninstall the game. Were you just cyber bullied? | | I tell our mutual friend group that you're dating Jan the | Man. Were you just cyber bullied? | | I tell everyone at our school that you're bad at Fortnite. | Were you just cyber bullied? | | I leak deep fake images of you getting fucked by a horse. | Were you just cyber bullied? | | The answer to all these questions might be yes in this study, | especially if it's based on self reporting. | ExcavateGrandMa wrote: | The short of witnessing things... | | The scope from this mistake(social media's captiving attentionn | not to say heritage alienation...), gonna have without preceding | impact(s) to our societies... and this already materializing | nowaday... | cwkoss wrote: | I bet internet use is also highly correlated with cyberbullying | swayvil wrote: | Being online leads to a deep mental disturbance that just grows | and grows. | | It's like you're hungry and you're reading through an endless | stack of menus with this weird idea that the menus will sate your | hunger. And you just keep on reading, about sandwiches, pizza and | Chinese food. But none of the reading helps. You just keep on | getting hungrier. | | I think that the Buddhists talk about this state, in their | version of Hell. | | It's only natural that this would lead to "demoniacal" behavior. | exo-pla-net wrote: | You're being downvoted, but studies suggest your intuition is | correct. | | People engage with social media at least in part out of social | urges. However, consumption of social media leads to increased | feelings of loneliness: https://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/is- | a-steady-diet-of-soci... | | So, social media is indeed a diet that just makes one hungrier. | | But does loneliness lead to more aggressive / "bullying" | behavior? This hasn't been well studied, but evidence suggests | this is the case: | http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/comm/malamuth/pdf/85jspr2.pdf | ipsocannibal wrote: | Nice to see research coming out of UGA showing up here on HN. Go | Dawgs. | IndySun wrote: | Humans, their personalities and traits, have barely altered in | 1000s of years. The internet is polarising the worst aspects. | Humans haven't changed, but their worst behaviour is unleashed by | anonymity. | lbj wrote: | I feel like every week there's a new study that implies causation | where none is proven and has no link to a root cause. | | "Possession of car linked to car crashes" | rland wrote: | When you interact online, you fundamentally are interacting with | only yourself. It is a solipsistic endeavor. You fundamentally | choose which comments to respond to; unlike the real world, where | a conversation occurs between two people, you can instantly drive | into a conversation whenever you see fit, and leave whenever you | wish also. | | Therefore, the choice of _which_ conversation, which comment, is | entirely yours. And since the comments available are literally | never-ending, you have the ultimate choice as to which you are | responding. Therefore, every conversation you have is with a | version of a person you have constructed in your head. | | This is what enables people to be mean and rude on the internet. | It's because they are talking to a construct which is | fundamentally in their own head, often times with their own nasty | internal conflicts applied. | | This is also the fundamental mistake people make about the online | world being a place where "discourse" can change anyone's | internal landscape. It cannot, because it every discourse on the | internet is by definition completely a subset of the ego of the | single individual. | inventtheday wrote: | so basically, you are actually me? Cool. | swiley wrote: | That's a neat idea but what about people who only see each | other in real time chats (voice or text)? You can stop reading | but AFK you can also walk away and it's pretty much the same. | rland wrote: | I think texts/video calls/etc. isn't social media, it's much | more like conversation. | | That's why people (in general) are not nearly as mean or rude | on a voice call or a 1-to-1 text chat. When you hear | someone's voice or actually engage with a real time | conversation (like a text chat, which you can't _as easily_ | just walk away from), they develop an interiority to you that | forces you to empathize with them. The physical world is the | ultimate version of this: seeing a person 's body and face | forces you to acknowledge their internal life, because the | shared physical experience forces it. That's why it's a much | higher barrier to bully or be bullied in the physical world. | | There are exceptions to this, obviously. Tight knit forums, | irc rooms, small moderated communities have an empathetic | cost of interaction. But those are not really "social media", | imho. | near wrote: | > Therefore, the choice of which conversation, which comment, | is entirely yours. | | It's not that simple though. You're likely to be part of a | broader community and simply deciding to leave that community, | and all of your friends, over the actions of one person, is not | very reasonable. Often times we are forced to be around people | we don't particularly like. When that person does something | valuable, they get a level of protection from being reprimanded | for their bad behavior that isn't afforded to outsiders of the | group, so kicking out such people often becomes difficult as | well. | motohagiography wrote: | So sadism, basically. Social media, it's like the internet but | without reason or accountability. | DoreenMichele wrote: | What I'm not seeing is what is going on in the lives of these | people that fosters such negative behavior. These studies almost | never ask questions like "Are you being abused by your parents?" | or "Have you been molested?" | | There is this presumption that they engage in malicious behavior | simply because they think they can get away with it, basically. | It's an "idle hands are the devil's workshop" theory and | generally lacks substance. | | Sure, people do all kinds of stupid stuff when bored and when | they have time on their hands, but why are these young | adolescents online all the time? Does this mean they have a | terrible home life and no one is paying attention to them? | | I don't really like proxies like "Spends a lot of time online." I | spend a lot of time online. I don't bully people. | | For me, the internet is a means to have a life when that wouldn't | otherwise be possible. I earn income online. I have hobbies | online. Etc. | | I really dislike the subtext that "spending time online is bad | and more time spent online is worse." I would guess it is | something more like "Spending time online to try to escape your | shitty life in an abusive household means you take your baggage | out on internet strangers because that seems safer and more do- | able than resolving your thorny problems." | vsareto wrote: | >These studies almost never ask questions like "Are you being | abused by your parents?" or "Have you been molested?" | | Wouldn't there be worse behavior problems than internet | bullying if that was the case? Like, physical bullying or | violence or worse? | DoreenMichele wrote: | Not necessarily. | | I was molested and raped as a child. Most people had no idea. | | I did attempt suicide at age 17 and I began making two grades | per year below a C starting after I was raped at the age of | twelve and I spent time in an insane asylum. | | But I also was one of the top three students of my graduating | high school class, had the highest SAT scores of my | graduating high school class, won a National Merit | Scholarship (to UGA, in fact) based on those scores, etc. | | Most people are not talented at identifying indicators of | abuse and people in abusive situations are often doing | everything in their power to find some high road solution | because they know they are at risk of being blamed and ending | up in jail or some shit. | | When I was institutionalized in my teens, I was initially | presumed to be a badly behaved teenager. I distinctly | remember having a conversation with a staff member who | assumed I was just some asshole teenager and they markedly | changed their tune when they found out I was a victim of | being molested and raped and I was suicidal and that was why | I was hospitalized, not because I was doing bad things to | other people. | tarboreus wrote: | Just want to say...I'm sorry all of that happened to you. | [deleted] | echelon wrote: | I wonder what happens to bullies when they grow up. | | Do they start behaving good to other people? | | Do they recognize their past behavior and feel bad for it? | tarboreus wrote: | They sign up for Twitter, if they haven't already. Possibly | go into politics. | skim_milk wrote: | In this field, sending out surveys with "objective" questions | to a large amount of people to collect data is the only way to | get your research deemed "scientific". I think everyone would | agree that the role of the scientists and writers of these pop- | psych articles should be to interpret the point and help | readers come to an insightful and true conclusion like yours, | but really everyone in the psychology and journalism fields are | forced to run a "I'm just reporting the facts like my boss | wants me to" mantra to keep their job. | | It's kind of sad that this academic system makes it so only | well-paid therapists get to do that, because of course looking | at the current state of affairs in the world and coming to and | reporting on and building insight on the logical conclusion | that only hurt people hurt people isn't "scientific research" | because the peers in your field only allow themselves and | others to repeat what the numbers in the excel spreadsheet say. | The psychology and objective journalism fields are great | examples of dysfunctional academic systems. | | I like Alice Miller's hot take on her field in her book "For | Your Own Good". I'm just going to straight up copy her text: | | _Those who swear by statistical studies and gain their | psychological knowledge from those sources will see my efforts | to understand the children Christiane and Adolf [Hitler] as | unnecessary and irrelevant. They would have to be given | statistical proof that a given number of cases of child abuse | later produced almost the same number of murderers. This proof | cannot be provided, however, for the following reasons_. Alice | Miller lists off 1) child abuse takes place in secret 2) | testimony of victims on their own suffered child abuse is often | very flawed to protect their parents 3) experts in criminology | have already noted this trend in their scientific research | | _Even if statistical data confirm my own conclusions, I do not | consider them a reliable source because they are often based on | uncritical assumptions and ideas that are either meaningless | (such as "a sheltered childhood"), vague, ambiguous ("received | a lot of love"), or deceptive ("the father was strict but | fair"), or that even contain obvious contradictions ("he was | loved and spoiled"). This is why I do not care to rely on | conceptual systems whose gaps are so large that the truth | escapes through them, but rather prefer to make the attempt ... | to take a different route. I am not searching for statistical | objectivity but for the subjectivity of the victim in question, | to the degree that my empathy permits._ | Chazprime wrote: | I think looking for deeper motivations such as abuse will | likely prove fruitless in these cases. | | A few years ago the 14-year old old daughter of a coworker of | mine got into a lot of trouble after being revealed as the | person (cyber)bullying two classmates because they were | "flaunting their new iPhones on social media too much". | Anecdotal for sure, but kids can be mean and with the internet | still offering a veil of anonymity, incidents like this are | bound to happen. | [deleted] | Wohlf wrote: | I would bet on a large scale it's not people who are being | abused, just people who are miserable and unhappy with their | lives for whatever reason. | junon wrote: | > for whatever reason | | Because we've given every single person a voice and the | promise that their opinion is just as important as everyone | else's, despite their understanding or their qualifications, | and it has made people collectively entitled and vitriolic. | | Couple this with absolutely batshit insane current events for | the last ~5 years and you have massive divide. | | Then multiply that by the expansion of technology into every | day lives, where everyone is connected and has an up-to-date, | moment-by-moment window into literally thousands of other | lives, and people get extremely detached from their own | selves and their own beliefs. They stop thinking for | themselves, almost entirely. | | Not to mention things like Twitter, with quirks like "you | have to fit very heavy conversations into cute little limited | messages" so as to even further increase the pressure on | public discourse. | | All of this friction creates heat, so to speak, and people | start realizing that outside their circles are people who are | so foreign and different that they MUST be idiot enemies, and | thus everyone begins to despise each other, categorizing | people and using assumptions about their character against | them, all formed from a few blurbs of random information | either from context or a few textboxes on a social media | profile. | | It's just like when one is unable to effectively communicate, | they often resort to violence. I firmly believe this is the | same thing happening online - it's just a huge, crowded | shouting match and since nothing ever happens despite how | loud you're screaming, you have to resort to other means to | get a rise out of someone else. | | I'm not a particularly happy person and I really, _really_ | dislike interacting with other people, so I can certainly | understand why some of this happens. Life sucks for a lot of | people, and being able to express that whilst having the | buffer of a computer screen and ethernet cable between you | and the other person is certainly a "great power, great | responsibility" type of situation. | diogenescynic wrote: | This. It's the modern equivalent of breaking windows on an | old building or setting off fireworks or some other | adolescent destructive behavior. It's just they have access | to a new platform to conduct this behavior on. These people | always existed--people just didn't have to see it and it | wasn't easily accessible like it is now. | luckylion wrote: | I'm not sure. Bullying, offline and online, is rarely done to | random people you don't have any connection to and without | other people. It either ties into offline, i.e. they're | bullying someone they know, or it's an online community thing | where some people from some community have fun together | bullying someone they might not know. | | My point is: in both cases it's not "I'm miserable and | unhappy", it's either a community-building thing, or it's a | social status thing. If you're bullying someone in school, | that's a power move to assert status. They're not unhappy, | they're just trying to get ahead; under different | circumstances, they'd just mug people to take their money. | Now they bully them to get more status. | colloq wrote: | I don't think it's only adolescents. You can see rich Google | employees bullying poorer developers on Twitter in the name of | social justice. Some of the bullies must be at least 50 years | old. | | Social media and Twitter are bad because you can form virtual | tribes and yield to age-old instincts. | | The more individualistic people are, the less they join those | tribes. Individualists tend to be grumpy though, for which they | are bullied by the perfect Twitter moralists. | DoreenMichele wrote: | In recent years, I have found my internet experiences | enormously frustrating because I used to have real friends | via internet. | | We exchanged Christmas presents. They helped me sort out how | to raise my challenging children. I always had someone to | talk with any time of the day or night when I was having | insomnia or whatever. | | And I haven't had stuff like in recent years. I just thought | it was me because I spent a few years homeless. | | But then I run into comments like this one that posit people | can _either_ connect socially and be assholes _or_ have a | mind of their own and (implicitly) no friends and be grumpy. | | I don't know what the hell is going on in the world, but | maybe my internet life going to hell isn't just about my life | going to hell. Maybe there's something else going on and it's | sort of "coincidence" that my internet life went to hell at | the same time that my actual life went to hell. | | But in my experience life does not compel you to either have | a mind of your own or have social connections. And having | social connections doesn't compel you to go along with being | part of a lynch mob or some shit. | | That's never how my life worked. I used to have friends _and_ | a mind of my own. I still have a mind of my own, but I 've | mostly not had friends in a long time. | | I kept thinking "I must be doing it wrong," but maybe not. | Maybe the internet isn't what it used to be or something. | Shared404 wrote: | I think partially it's that mainstream social media has | become a hell-hole. | | I've found HN to be much better for discussion in general | (recognizing that this is not the case for everyone), and | have participated in IRC rooms and whatnot where if I spent | more time I could probably consider the people there | friends, while still retaining individualism. | | I tend towards grumpy isolationism however, so I may not be | a good standard. | v_london wrote: | I think your observations are accurate. I've also noticed | the problem, and that private-ish group conversations | like WhatsApp groups and small Discord servers are so | much better than Facebook, Twitter, Instagram and co. The | only problem is discoverability -- because groups like | these are private, it's very hard to discover the ones | you'd like to join. | | I'm currently working on an early-stage startup on this | space, and we're specifically trying to solve the | discoverability problem while keeping the group chats | themselves small and private (or at least private | enough). Do you think you could see yourself using | something like this? | Lammy wrote: | My personal rule of thumb is that I don't trust anybody whose | Twitter profile picture is a photo of themselves. | Sodman wrote: | This is wild to me, as my rule of thumb is the exact | opposite! I assume anybody whose profile picture isn't | themselves is either a bot, a troll, or a throwaway account | they use for comments they know will be controversial. It's | the equivalent of having a username like "@John448172312". | (Not that you should really trust either group to argue | anything in good faith on Twitter). | echelon wrote: | That's an unfortunate heuristic. What is your basis for | this? | Lammy wrote: | Unwarranted self-importance. Bonus points if it's a photo | of them on a stage holding a microphone with that open- | palm I-am-giving-a-TED-talk gesture :) | ryandrake wrote: | This is probably a pretty decent heuristic actually! My | guess, as an armchair psychologist, is that narcissism | and a toxic need to generate attention and drama are | highly correlated with constantly taking selfies and | sharing them. Look for the profile picture and just a | quick glance at the feed, and if it's full of selfies, | you probably have a pretty good idea of who you're | dealing with. | raffraffraff wrote: | I know someone who hates pictures of herself, never took | a selfie in her life, but switched to a picture of | herself and used her real name simply because it's less | likely she'll say something stupid/inflammatory in the | middle of an argument. If you're using some random name | like chickenslippers1981 and have a pic of a cat, you | might feel less like being thoughtful. You can always | walk away from chickenslippers1981/cat, but you can't | walk away from yourself. | endisneigh wrote: | I've thought about this problem a lot - I want to create a social | network that has the following attributes: | | - $1 a year to participate | | - You must read posts/articles to reply. Imagine the mechanism in | which this is determined to be "perfect." | | - No pictures | | - Karma is gathered by writing posts that are read a lot, as | opposed to comments that have a lot of "upvotes." | | - Upvotes/downvoting doesn't exist. | | From my experience the social media addiction is heightened by 3 | attributes: | | 1. pictures | | 2. how controversial something is | | 3. trolling | | The issue though is that a social network like I described would | be something people wouldn't want to use, so it wouldn't really | serve to be a place people could go to that's a healthier | community. It's a tough nut to crack. | jancsika wrote: | Alright, "hackers": | | How the fuck do I use the adtech delivery system you generously | gifted to me in order to read the body of a research article[1] | from this public institution of higher learning? | | [1] | https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/23727810.2020.18... | yesenadam wrote: | Hmm the only way I can see right now is to pay US$45 (plus | local tax) for the 13-page PDF. Which sounds insane. | grawprog wrote: | My opinions not so much on the study itself, but the topic of | general shitty behaviour people seem to display on popular social | media platforms. | | Personally, I think it has less to do with things like anonymity, | up/downvotes and other gamey systems employed that tend to get | blamed and more to do with the communities themselves. | | Specifically, their size. But also, the willingness of moderators | to enforce a few basic rules of civility. | | I think they suffer from that same phenomenon that makes cities | on a whole, less friendly than smaller towns and communities. I | realize there's exceptions, but speaking generally this tends to | be the case. | | To further the comparison a bit, you're also more likely to have | the police respond with favourable results to personal and petty | crime in smaller towns. | | You can see the same things in smaller internet communities. | Whether they're pseudonymous or not or whatever kinds of upvoting | systems they have or not, there's less people, moderators tend to | respond more quickly to personal attacks and things and usually | in more reasonable ways than automated algorithms. | | Again, generalizing, but when communities are small enough all | the people participating are recognizable and when moderators are | active in enforcing those basic rules of conduct, people tend to | behave a little more reasonably. | | As a sidenote, I'll throw HN in as an exception to the size | thing, because it's a pretty large community, but dang and the | mods are like super human or something so manage to keep the | conversation pretty civil most of the time here. | robbyking wrote: | > I think they suffer from that same phenomenon that makes | cities on a whole, less friendly than smaller towns and | communities. | | There is data that shows the opposite is true[1]. While the | pace of life is faster in urban areas -- which may be jarring | to people aren't accustom to it -- living in areas with high | population density teaches people to be courteous and | respectful. | | [1] https://thepointsguy.com/news/are-new-yorkers-friendly/ | superkuh wrote: | This is so trivial it's useless nonsense. This is like saying | that that existing in reality is linked to bullying. Yes, sure, | you have to exist in physical space to be non-cyberbullied. And | you have to exist in a digital space to by cyberbullied. ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2021-03-30 23:01 UTC)