[HN Gopher] Facebook under fire over secret teen research
___________________________________________________________________
Facebook under fire over secret teen research
Author : ColinWright
Score : 81 points
Date : 2021-09-15 21:28 UTC (1 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.bbc.co.uk)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.bbc.co.uk)
| i_love_music wrote:
| Such a shame Facebook is considered a prestigious place to work.
| Sure, you can become a millionaire, but at what cost? Is this
| what you imagined you would do as a kid interested in
| math/computers/science?
| rozap wrote:
| It's a useful tool for hiring though. I wouldn't be able to
| hire anyone who worked there. At least at my current job, a
| functioning moral compass is required due to the impact our
| clients (governments) have on the general population. It's part
| of our interview process.
|
| Not that the pay scales overlap much anyway.
| lostlogin wrote:
| > Such a shame Facebook is considered a prestigious place to
| work.
|
| Is it? It's not my industry but I haven't got that impression
| from reading threads here.
| voidfunc wrote:
| I like money. Not at Facebook but would join if I was looking
| again. Someone's gonna get the money, it might as well be me.
| na85 wrote:
| >Someone's gonna get the money, it might as well be me.
|
| Ethics are disappointingly rare in Software. Such a shame.
| Redori wrote:
| I'm open to new thoughts on this but this seems like Facebook is
| being used a scapegoat. What would be a viable solution to this
| problem?
| raman162 wrote:
| Related recent discussion:
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28523688
| notyourwork wrote:
| Does anyone remember Cosmopolitan and other like magazines.
| Teenage body issues and associated anxiety are not new. What has
| happened is we gave everyone internet access so now they can look
| at pictures of unrealistic bodies all day everywhere they go. The
| result is body dysmorphia on steroids.
| dhimes wrote:
| Young men are vulnerable to this, too. In fact, it's not
| unreasonable to think that it doesn't do any good for older men
| and women, either.
| edoceo wrote:
| Setting unrealistic expectations and then failing to meet
| them is bad-feels for all brains.
| mc32 wrote:
| It's true, but how many girls bought/could afford Cosmo, Elle,
| etc. subs? I suspect it wasn't as many as have Insta/Fb
| accounts --which is world-wide and reaches into every class and
| society.
|
| And given we now know it's severely detrimental to their well-
| being, I think it deserves serious consideration and requires
| change. I don't mean to censor people, but we must stop
| fomenting the image problem on purpose via programming and
| advertising and social engagement.
|
| Facebook knows it's a problem and they should tackle it (as
| well as any such legacy magazines and the fashion industry in
| general).
| FpUser wrote:
| >"Facebook knows it's a problem and they should tackle it"
|
| Preface: Not a lover of Facebook and "social media" in
| general and do not use it as such.
|
| However having FB "tackle / promote" way of life I think is
| totally wrong. It is up to the parents and schools to tech
| kids that there are more interesting things in the world than
| this mental masturbation on computer / phone screen watching
| somebody else's life.
| agallant wrote:
| Yep, as another example "fake news" isn't new either, e.g.
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellow_journalism
|
| I'd suggest that the new challenge isn't simply scale and
| omnipresence but algorithmization - modern platforms can tune
| and target to the level of the individual. In the past,
| (dis)information had to be broadcast in a far more one-size-
| fits-most style, perhaps segmented by broad geographic or
| demographic groups at best.
| standardUser wrote:
| I truly don't understands this perspective. It used to be that
| mass media was a tightly-controlled, walled-off garden. The set
| number of popular and accessible magazines, tv stations and
| films suffered from far more centralized control, had far less
| inclusion in its leadership and staff, and resulted in a hyper-
| narrow range of acceptable beauty and image standards. It was
| borderline dystopian.
|
| Young people, by and large, could _only_ view media that was
| part of this monoculture. They were already seeing it all
| everywhere they went. Now, with just a little looking, people
| can find an entire universe of body-positive media and
| communities that simply _did not exist_ in the 80 's and 90's.
| So while there may be more ways to transmit body negativity
| thanks to the internet, I'd argue there is not _more_ body
| negativity because we had already maxed it out. It 's just as
| bad as it had been for decades. The difference now is an
| alternative exists!
| mc32 wrote:
| I think the problem is people think there isn't an attractive
| main stream that people look to regardless of microculture
| (see Kaitlin Jenner for example as someone who finds
| themselves an outsider within a small community). But even if
| that were not the case, being anti-X is also a problem in
| itself as you are defining yourself against X.
|
| Wanting to be "popular" has its problems but wanting to be
| "anti-popular" is also a problem because in the end it's not
| yourself. Being the not-popular also has it's own mainstream
| so it will have the same popular and anti-popular dynamic. So
| the only ones benefiting are the company and aware
| "influencers".
| bayindirh wrote:
| Maybe this body negativity came from _inaccessible_ people,
| who were famous /connected enough to be on these pages.
|
| Now, _everyone_ can do it, and many are around you,
| accessible. They are your friend 's friends or your friends.
|
| Moreover, mobile applications and web applications allows you
| to touch up your appearance. You look and say "I'd be so much
| beautiful/handsome this way, but I'm not, and _never will be_
| ".
|
| Self criticism inflicts the greatest damage since there's no
| restraint, no barrier to dampen down to its effects. It's
| very destructive.
| naravara wrote:
| I think the parasocial element of engagement on Twitter and
| Instagram have a big effect as well. A cover model in a
| magazine has an air of inaccessibility. She's clearly an
| aspirational figure and held above "normal" people.
|
| The way the influencer model works, though, they're all focused
| on seeming accessible and relatable. It's not just that this is
| a supermodel who is above us all, she's trying to look like
| your hot friend. All the products she shills are stuff that's
| supposed to make you look like her.
| titzer wrote:
| > What has happened is we gave everyone internet access so now
| they can look at pictures of unrealistic bodies all day
| everywhere they go.
|
| Not just that. The entire model is to _chase you down, pester
| you with it, and shove products into your face_. Which
| products? Whoever bids the most!
| huntermeyer wrote:
| We may have to come together as a society and deem these social
| media apps as being a harm to society, especially the youth.
|
| Perhaps even age restrict them like alcohol, gambling, etc.
| fidesomnes wrote:
| yes. ban them all. it is the only way to think of the children.
| 1vuio0pswjnm7 wrote:
| This is more interesting (Instagram response to WSJ, linked to in
| the article):
| https://about.instagram.com/blog/announcements/using-researc...
|
| "We're increasingly focused on addressing negative social
| comparison and negative body image. One idea we think has promise
| is finding opportunities to jump in if we see people dwelling on
| certain types of content."
|
| "From our research, we're starting to understand the types of
| content some people feel may contribute to negative social
| comparison, and we're exploring ways to prompt them to look at
| different topics if they're repeatedly looking at this type of
| content."
|
| Wow, talk about "Big Brother".
|
| Facebook/Instagram monitors everything the user looks at, how
| many times and for how long, and now they will "jump in" and
| alert the user.
|
| "We're watching you and we think you should look at something
| else."
|
| Meanwhile the whole "business model" of Instgram/Facebook is
| online advertising.
|
| Advertising, e.g., in print, is what created these "negative body
| image" problems in the first place!
|
| As they say, in the world of computers, what is old is new again.
| Originality is rare.
|
| Big Tech relies on the same tired, old consumerism ideas, except
| it operates over the internet.
|
| The only thing "futuristic" is the surveillance. Its nothing less
| than incredible what young people today are tolerating. Are they
| studying the psychological affects of surveillance on young
| people.
| Tarsul wrote:
| I'd like to think that by "jumping in" they mean that they
| change what kind of content the algorithms shows their users...
| however, I'd guess that no such self-regulation could ever
| suffice (esp. because it would always be less important than ad
| money in internal metrics).
| mc32 wrote:
| Yeah. As if it's not obvious "engagement" and "influencers"
| aren't the real problem, no instead, it's "huh, some people
| actually fall for the ads (body image)".
|
| Stop promoting trash and see the problem go away --but so will
| their main cash cow. That might color their decision-making a
| bit.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-09-15 23:00 UTC)