[HN Gopher] Facebook proven to negatively impact mental health ___________________________________________________________________ Facebook proven to negatively impact mental health Author : giuliomagnifico Score : 438 points Date : 2022-09-22 13:41 UTC (9 hours ago) (HTM) web link (english.tau.ac.il) (TXT) w3m dump (english.tau.ac.il) | bannedbybros wrote: | Karawebnetwork wrote: | As a manager of a large page (several million reach per day), I | often feel uncomfortable. On the one hand, Facebook is the best | platform to reach many people. On the other hand, I think it is | unethical to encourage people to stay on the platform. I also | think that if I were to close the page, the void would be filled | by the next person. | | My ego tells me that since I'm aware of these problems, I can do | my best to keep my page from turning into a doomscrolling | experience. Yet, once again, the algorithm doesn't display my | posts in their natural order, only the controversial ones, so the | doomscrolling happens anyway. | | I often keep up at night to think about it and I feel like there | is no good answer. | juancn wrote: | Does anyone still use facebook? I mean, I'm 45 and just my mom | uses it. | | Are they sure the mental health impact is not just senility? | | /s | matai_kolila wrote: | IDK... I know Facebook feeds are different for each person but | for me there are basically zero posts from people I know on | Facebook anymore, it's just ads and videos of random TikTok style | videos. | bluGill wrote: | I have started "hitting block all from [whoever created the | meme/video]". It makes a difference, but only a small one. the | other thing I do is after blocking 2 I close facebook. I hope | more people do this - I want it to start showing up in | statistics that shared memes and videos is harming engagement | numbers, while friends and family sharing their life is | helping. Thus encouraging whatever change they need to make to | give me more of that. | | I still have a number of distance friends/family who share | their life of facebook so there is value to remain there. | Facebook is a great way to see my daughter singing "baby shark" | - if you don't personally know me you don't want to see that, | but if you know me you want to see it. | wahnfrieden wrote: | Did you know you can look at profiles, not just the feed? | matai_kolila wrote: | True, I do use Facebook profiles to remember the names of the | children of my friends/family. But I can't remember the last | "wall" I saw that had anything from this year on it. | xapata wrote: | You're saying that your friends and family don't post to | Facebook? In this light, your first comment was misleading. | You implied that Facebook's post-display algorithm was | suppressing your friends and family. | matai_kolila wrote: | Not misleading, emblematic. Facebook's utilization has | plummeted. | xapata wrote: | I thought you originally meant that your friends were | frequent posters. | tmpz22 wrote: | So if we engage with facebook more, and invest more time, we | can have slightly better content? | pohl wrote: | Maybe think of it in terms of active vs passive engagement, | rather than more or less engagement. In other words: using | the tool, rather than letting the tool use you. | wahnfrieden wrote: | No, the context of this thread is a study on mentally | harmful content. I'm not here to coach people on seeking | quality Facebook content | Melatonic wrote: | Breaking news: Water is wet. Facebook is fucked. | | In all seriousness though glad to see this is actually being | seriously studied | inamberclad wrote: | I wonder how people continue to work at Facebook. I know they | tend to have the highest salaries from the FAANG groups, but | still. We, as engineers and builders, have the responsibility to | think critically about how the things we are working on will be | used. | blep_ wrote: | Earlier this year, I had a recruiter invite me to interview | there, and I made an attempt at convincing myself with | reasoning like: | | - they're going to do their evil thing anyway, may as well show | up and intentionally do it marginally worse | | - they're going to pay someone large sums of money, may as well | be me | | - I increasingly believe this whole industry is net evil | overall, and large sums of money mean I can leave it sooner | | - also, it was their VR thing, and if it was a VR thing at | _literally any other company_ I would be excited about that | because VR is at least conceptually cool | | These are not particularly good arguments, and that's why I | don't work there now. But statistically, I can imagine a few | people who we would otherwise categorize as non-evil actually | convince themselves with arguments like these, and when you're | casting as wide a net as Facebook does, a few is all you need. | JohnFen wrote: | I think those arguments would only be persuasive to someone | who is actively looking for a way to paper over their ethical | concerns and take the money. They wouldn't be persuasive for | a person trying to be true to their ethical stance. | blep_ wrote: | This is an accurate description of my thought processes at | the time. | lostgame wrote: | Thank you for a realistic, grounded, evidence-based | discussion of this. I've seen quite a few comments in this | thread that have made me shake my head pretty hard. | | Here's the thing: anyone who is in IT, especially | programming; is going to be well-aware of the...I don't want | to say 'evil', but I will at least say questionably ethical | nature of Facebook's workings. | | _Anyone_ working there had to compromise _some_ level of | ethics for the profit they acquire from it. | [deleted] | foobiekr wrote: | In most engineer discussion contexts, the second the topic of | how obviously evil, manipulative, and socially destructive the | social, gig, and ad companies that pay well comes up, the | people who work or worked for them or aspire to make | Facebook/Google/Uber/... comp packages will go to great lengths | to defend them. It is really incredible how transparent it is. | | "Hey, there are crack dealers, people selling cigarettes, etc. | Why are you singling out Facebook?" | | It's almost like they know the issue, but think that somehow | the existence of even worse scumbags provides them with ethics | aircover. | stickfigure wrote: | I wonder how people can continue to post questions like this to | HN, when there are _billions_ of people who happily use | Facebook. I would think it 's our responsibility to look | outside of our narrow information bubble. | hhmc wrote: | If the original claim is that 'facebook is damaging to (and | beyond) its users', then the response 'but it has _many_ | users' isn't much of a defense.. | stickfigure wrote: | I think the original claim is that "facebook is damaging to | _some_ users ". You could say the same about salt. People | still work in salt mines. | lostgame wrote: | LMFAO...yeah, you could say the same about Heroin. And | Heroin _is_ actually damaging to users. | | You can pick _any_ random thing, compare it to any other | random thing, and get similar or opposing results - or | anything in between, because those things aren 't | correlated or comparable in any way. :P | ziddoap wrote: | I'm not really able to wrap my head around your argument. | | If it's damaging to some percentage of users, having more | users means it damages more people. | | Is your argument that this is okay because some people | also put their health at risk being salt miners? | stickfigure wrote: | Can you name something that is not damaging to someone? | Excessive salt consumption is linked over a million | annual deaths worldwide. Even water kills thousands of | people per year (drowning). | | If your rule is "we can't have things that may hurt some | people" then you're going to live in a pretty bland | world. Gonna be especially tough without water. | ziddoap wrote: | > _Excessive salt consumption is linked over a million | annual deaths worldwide. Even water kills thousands of | people per year (drowning)_ | | And we have people and organizations that try to reduce | the amount of deaths from those things. Raising | awareness, passing laws, etc. | | > _If your rule is "we can't have things that may hurt | some people" then you're going to live in a pretty bland | world._ | | I only asked for clarification on your argument. But, no, | that's not my "rule". I just think that if we can reduce | harm, it's nice to do that where possible. | | > _Gonna be especially tough without water._ | | Come on. Your whole last sentence is ridiculous. The | poster questioned why someone would work at Facebook. | That is not the equivalent of saying "we can't have | things that may hurt some people" and it's so far removed | from your water/drowning scenario that I can't tell if | you're being serious. | lostgame wrote: | That's, uh...pretty ignorant of the fact that most of the | people in the IT world are infinitely more aware of how | damaging FB and most social media sites are than the average | person. Come _on_. | stickfigure wrote: | Please tell me about the medical and sociological research | you do in your IT job. | fallingknife wrote: | Still say FB did nothing wrong. Maybe it's bad for you, but so | is TV news, sugar, alcohol, tobacco, and fast food. As an | engineer I have the responsibility to give my users what they | want, not be some moralizing nag. | | edit: I mean nothing wrong in terms of the product it delivers | lavventura wrote: | Playing video games or trading have similiar effects or worse. | Engineers who build those platforms should question themselves | too. | UnpossibleJim wrote: | That depends on the video game: | | https://www.verywellmind.com/video-games-could-treat- | mental-... | | https://www.webmd.com/mental-health/mental-health- | benefits-o... | | https://english.umd.edu/research- | innovation/journals/interpo... | | EDIT: formatting | nvarsj wrote: | As an engineer, you should love FB. They had a large hand in | breaking up the lowball salary cartel maintained by Google and | Apple, and set a precedent in the industry for paying engineers | well. As far as societal impact - it's debatable whether it's a | net good or not. | randomdata wrote: | No doubt they do think hard about how their product will be | used and ensure that the customer is as happy as possible. | Money is on the line. It is production of the product that | produces undesirable externalities. | | Frankly, how does anyone continue to work in any job? They all | bring undesirable externalities of some sort. As a farmer, I'm | one of the most evil people on the planet, or so they say, due | to the externalities created by agriculture. Working for | Facebook would be a huge moral improvement. But, what are you | going to do? | shmde wrote: | They definitely know, keep silent till they are on meta's | payroll. Once they resign their moral compass suddenly aligns | correctly and they start speaking out about how fb is bad blah | blah. Quite pathetic to be honest. | jon_richards wrote: | Social media will be the smoking of our generation. | | In a century, they'll wonder how we could possibly have kept | engaging knowing the harm we were doing to ourselves. | therealdrag0 wrote: | Is the harm really on that level? What is the magnitude of | harm? | dougweltman wrote: | "Proven" | mayowaxcvi wrote: | - brought to you by the academic fields that can reliably | predict almost nothing. | themitigating wrote: | I'm happy that at least a decent portion the comments here | are treating this with the same skepticism as other studies | on HN. I was actually expecting people to accept it because | of the hate towards Facebook. | kodah wrote: | Facebook has an earned reputation, not hate. | thenightcrawler wrote: | yep | swayvil wrote: | Consider your attention. | | You pay attention. Concentrate your attention. Occasionally have | your attention jerked around by distractions. | | Consider what you do when you think, read, watch tv, consume | facebook. Consider what you are doing with your attention. That | _shape_. | | If you do it a lot then that shape intensifies. | | And that shape sticks. It becomes your normal. | | And the shape of your attention dictates your reality. | | It's important to take that into account. | andrewla wrote: | As with all studies in the social sciences, one of two principles | apply. | | First, if the conclusions are counterintuitive or unexpected, | then when you look closer, you will find that the methodology is | garbage and that it does not support the conclusions given. | | Second, if the conclusions reflect things that you believe are | true, when you look closer, you will find that the methodology is | garbage and that it does not support the conclusions given. | xoxo1121 wrote: | Tainnor wrote: | That's a low-effort, shallow dismissal that doesn't even | address anything specific to the article. | | If you have specific criticism regarding the methodology of | this study - which doesn't, prima facie, appear unsound - | please let the rest of us participate. | andrewla wrote: | Unfortunately I was not able to locate a preprint for the | paper itself, so we only have this article summarizing. | | First I'll say that without preregistration of the | methodology, there's a lot that is immediately suspicious. | | > The researchers built an index based on 15 relevant | questions in the NCHA, in which students were asked about | their mental health in the past year | | Why these 15? What was the "relevance" criteria? | | To their credit, they don't just look at a summary metric of | "mental health" which would be kind of absurd since the | relative weighting is also arbitrary (although that appears | to be the main conclusion). The article here notes several | axes on which significant differences were found. Why these | axes? What about other "mental health" metrics? Did they get | better or stay neutral or just have no detectable effect? | | Without preregistration it's almost impossible to determine | exactly how cherry-picked these differences were, as with a | large enough set of potential questions to choose from, | you're going to find statistically significant trends on some | of them by random chance. | | The core methodology is to track the spread of Facebook to | different colleges and compare mental health between schools | that had Facebook and schools that did not yet have Facebook. | This is surprisingly not terrible, but without insight into | how the study controlled for the time axis and potential | confounding variables about the non-random selection of | schools for the rollout, it's difficult to say more. | nequo wrote: | > Without preregistration it's almost impossible to | determine exactly how cherry-picked these differences were | | It is hard to credibly preregister studies that use | observational data. It also seems hard to design an | experiment around the roll-out of a social-media service | that we know ahead of time to be successful. | | Instead, what is usually done on observational data is (1) | making clear what the statistical assumptions are that are | required to establish causality, (2) testing possible | violations of the assumptions, and (3) testing whether the | data is consistent with alternative explanations. | | So in such papers, results don't come for free. We need to | think seriously about what reasonable theories we can have, | and whether the data matches each theory. | | > without insight into how the study controlled for the | time axis and potential confounding variables about the | non-random selection of schools for the rollout, it's | difficult to say more. | | The paper does also use alternative assumptions that lead | to alternative statistical specifications. They also look | at various intermediate outcomes to see if they are | consistent with their proposed narrative. Such defensive | writing is what blows the PDF up to almost 80 pages. | andrewla wrote: | I hate that I was baited into taking a closer look at this | rather than just sticking with my trite dismissal. I did | locate a preprint of the paper [1], but have not yet looked | at it to determine if any of my above criticisms hold | water. | | Nonetheless I remain blithely confident that this study is | not going to be the one to break the mold. | | [1] https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/256787/1/180181 | 2535.... | rajup wrote: | So it is a low-effort shallow dismissal then? | lcnPylGDnU4H9OF wrote: | Certainly a dismissal but at this point it seems rather | disingenuous to call it low-effort and shallow. | | (Also, please consider this friendly piece of advice: | check yourself!) | Tainnor wrote: | The follow-up comment is not low-effort and shallow, the | original one was. | | Not sure why OP considers themselves to have been | "baited" when the conversation IMHO has been greatly | improved by them substantiating their criticism (which | may have its merit). | lcnPylGDnU4H9OF wrote: | Fair points! | | The comment I responded to was seeming to attribute those | to OP's later comments, which would be unfair. The | dismissal of the dismissal still comes across as low- | effort and shallow. | FollowingTheDao wrote: | It is a working paper and you can find the whole paper | here: | | https://www.econstor.eu/handle/10419/256787 | mikkergp wrote: | One thing about this study as described in the article is it | doesn't really seem to be about "Facebook" persay but social | media in general, it doesn't seem to cover any of the | newsfeed optimization stuff since it was done using data from | the initial college rollout. Interesting nonetheless but I | think it's weird to attribute it to "Facebook" specifically, | I mean, you sort of have to since they only covered Facebook | in the research, but it mostly seems to be about "services | that facilitate comparison to your peers." | random314 wrote: | I will take a stab. Mind you, I have not even clicked on the | article, much less read it or know what the methodology is. | Here goes ---- | | "The have used a correlational model, not a causal model. | There are several confounding variables the paper doesn't | consider, hence it is not proven from the evidence that | Facebook has a negative impact " | Tainnor wrote: | In most fields of study you can't really perform double- | blind experiments. We know that smoking is linked to cancer | through decades of correlational studies and careful | analysis of confounding factors, for example. | | The article discusses how the study looked at different | universities during the same time period, some of which had | access to facebook and some of which didn't, and discovered | that in the first case there was an increase in mental | health issues over that period. There could still be | confounders, sure, (or the sample size could be too small | etc.), but at a first glance, that's not an unreasonable | approach, as it tries to isolate the variable "facebook | yes/no". | | That said, if you haven't read the article, I'm not sure | why you even felt the need to comment? This is exactly the | same kind of shallow dismissal I was calling out. | giraffe_lady wrote: | The smoking comparison is very apt I think. People and | institutions persistently pointing out that correlation | isn't causation is a big part of why it took decades for | the link between smoking and cancer to become commonly | accepted after it was well established. | | Some were surely acting in their own personal financial | interests but I'm also certain that a lot of it was more | nuanced and personal. People need to think of themselves | as, for the most part, good people who do mostly good | things. Knowingly contributing to something that makes | life much worse for many people doesn't align with that | and they will need to deny it. I know if you polled | phillip morris employees about cancer in the late 60s | after the link was confirmed you'd hear a lot about | correlation and uncertainty. | | HN isn't a random slice of the population. A lot of us | here work in this domain or on similar products. There | are certainly people in this comment section who directly | worked on the core facebook product being discussed. They | need to think of themselves as good still, too. | random314 wrote: | Smoking to lung cancer has a very direct delivery | mechanism, inhaling tar into the lungs. The effect size | and sample sizes are big. The hypothesized mechanisms | here - unfavorable social comparison is far more tenuous, | and the sample size here is number of universities- not | number of students. | | These 2 are vastly different situations. | | To give an example. Establishing causal effect between | nicotine and lung cancer is an open question, even as the | causal effect of smoking on cancer is very clear. | random314 wrote: | I made it a point to not read it, because virtually all | social science papers are like these. It's really not | worth my time and why the "shallow" dismissals should be | the default response. | | Going back to your specific comments. Clearly the | universities were not randomly assigned the treatment and | control. And the actual number of independent sample | sizes is extremely unlikely to give stat sig results at | the single percentage digit impact shown. And no matter | what they do, for something as complex as mental health, | listing out all the confounding factors is hopeless - | unlike lung cancer where you are literally sucking tar | into your lungs and the sample sizes and effects are | huge. Its a useful observational study, but it is | ridiculous to call it a proof. | | > We know that smoking is linked to cancer through | decades of correlational studies and careful analysis of | confounding factors, for example. | | Yes, it took decades, when there is no proper control | set. There are work arounds like backdoor and front door | criteria, but yeah - it will take decades of work and | looking inside the "black box". | Tainnor wrote: | > but it is ridiculous to call it a proof. | | Proofs are for mathematics, not for science. (I share | your distaste for science journalism that throws big | words like "prove" around without much care, but that's | probably not something you can fault the study authors | for.) | | This is evidence in favour of a theory. It is to be | understood within a larger body of evidence. Eventually, | hopefully, there is enough evidence in one direction or | another that we may draw more or less definitive | conclusions. | | > I made it a point to not read it, because virtually all | social science papers are like these. It's really not | worth my time | | Nobody is forcing you to read this study, but somehow you | seem to assume that your shallow dismissals (to which you | are of course entitled privately) are worth anyone's | time. | jedberg wrote: | > but at a first glance, that's not an unreasonable | approach, as it tries to isolate the variable "facebook | yes/no". | | I agree it's not unreasonable, but you have to account | for the fact that back then, most of the colleges that | had it were top tier/high stress/highly selective | colleges. Facebook started at Harvard, then went to Yale | and Princeton, and then on to basically most of the US | News top 50. | sixstringtheory wrote: | FWIW, the article claims the exact opposite | | > _While many studies have found a correlation between the | use of social media and various symptoms related to mental | health, so far, it has been challenging to ascertain | whether social media was actually the cause of poor mental | health. By applying a novel research method, researchers | have now succeeded in establishing such a causality_ | | But doesn't elaborate on the new method. We'll have to wait | for the study to be published I guess. | andrewla wrote: | I note in my other reply in this thread that they do | describe some of the methodology (although I have not yet | located a copy of the paper itself) appears to be address | this. | | They looked at the mental health (as measured by self- | reported surveys) among schools over time and cross- | referenced that with the rollout of Facebook over time. | So they could compare the change in mental health at | schools the received Facebook access and compare it to | the change in mental health at schools that did not | receive Facebook access at the same time. | | The methodology appears to be fairly novel and does | isolate them from several reverse-causation biases, as it | is difficult to imagine that the rollout of Facebook was | influenced by factors that led to the decline of mental | health in student bodies. | sixstringtheory wrote: | Hmm, yes I read that but it seemed so basic that I | assumed it couldn't be considered "novel." Also it would | appear to establish correlation but not causation. | | I assume to do that you have to establish the complete | pathway and mechanism from someone using facebook to an | increase in depression, like showing observations of | changes in neurotransmitters or brain structure that have | been proven to cause changes in mental health, and then | proving that facebook caused the changes in those levels. | (FWIW I assume this could be done and that we may see | those kinds of results if it were done, but I haven't | actually seen a study like that. I also assume the | hypothesis in general.) | | For instance, using the example of smoking from another | commenter, from the CDC website [0]: | | > - Poisons in cigarette smoke can weaken the body's | immune system, making it harder to kill cancer cells. | When this happens, cancer cells keep growing without | being stopped. | | > - Poisons in tobacco smoke can damage or change a | cell's DNA. DNA is the cell's "instruction manual" that | controls a cell's normal growth and function. When DNA is | damaged, a cell can begin growing out of control and | create a cancer tumor. | | These seem more like things that can be tested in | laboratory settings that are easily reproducible and rely | on more objective observations than self-reporting. | | I'm neither a neuroscientist or social scientist so I'm | just trying to understand, not saying they're wrong or | that the research is even flawed. | | [0]: https://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/campaign/tips/diseases/c | ancer.ht... | srcreigh wrote: | The methodology in this paper is a step above simple | correlation analysis. Facebook in its early rollout period was | released to some universities & colleges and not others. This | study compares the increases of depression & anxiety in the | schools where Facebook was made available vs schools where it | wasn't. | | Of course, it'd be nice to see if the difference in increased | rates of depression & anxiety are themselves abnormal in the | first place... Not sure if the study goes into that depth. | altdataseller wrote: | Your methodology for analyzing the methodology of this report | is unsound (FB still is bad for mental health though) | daniel-cussen wrote: | There's some stuff with merit. Generally headlines on this | forum are way off the money generally, in psychology sociology | psychiatry. | | Like there's that one finding that came up while researching | how scientists in the hard sciences achieved recognition. The | soft science researcher discovered that every single one of the | scientists insisted questions are more important than answers. | But there was no margin of error, so they couldn't write a | paper about that. It's not a statistic, it's just absolute. | They should have by all means written a paper about it, no | shame in being absolutely right. | | And there's sociologists like Andres Pascal Allende, on whom | _the Mandalorian_ is based, who was considered a counter- | terrorist by the rightful president, and also a terrorist by | the usurper, like _the Mandalorian_. I should clarify he mostly | carried out sociology with machine guns and grenades, killed | many carabineros, hard target, came in and out of Chile as he | pleased, highly persecuted, outraced the persecutors every | time, was Minister of Tourism in Cuba--that 's a really good | job, incredibly good, dude that's like that's a huge reward for | standing up to death and torture, oh man, that's recognition, | on top of the other recognition, medals and all the rest. That | is all second only to being the hero of the absolute most | oppressed and repressed (both) worthy victims, meaning those | who wish to do what he did for them if they could like watching | _the Mandalorian_ wishing they could do that and then going | back into the grind and struggle day after day of exploitation | and dealing with the betrayal contest set up by the | dictatorship. Nothing compares to that recognition, the | recognition of the worthy victim. That is heroism | definitionally. Really his heroism and those he led determined | were the only thing holding up the dignity and living | conditions of like 80% of Chileans, fear of the hero. | | He studied sociology before becoming _the Mandalorian_. Must | have learned something if he was determined to graduate. | fdewrewrewf wrote: | Once it becomes more widely accepted just how bad the continual | dopamine drip of (especially mobile) social media is for | individuals and society, it would be very interesting to find | some research into the gender differences. My wife has a theory | that, for a variety of reasons, women are more drawn into the | online social world than men. | duxup wrote: | For me I just felt uncomfortable not being able to just pick what | I wanted to see... | bastardoperator wrote: | The ship has sailed. They could pay me to come back and that | still wouldn't be a good enough excuse to waste my time there. | All they had to do was keep facebook positive but between the | shockingly bad products they advertise and right wing maniacs, it | might as well be the cesspool of the internet. It would take an | act of god to turn it around at this point. | boatsie wrote: | Sure, and alcohol, soda, candy, processed foods negatively affect | physical health. People "know" this but obviously think the | satisfaction they get from it is worth the negative impacts. | changoplatanero wrote: | I don't get why Facebook is so often singled out in these types | of studies. What about other activities like dating or school or | going to church? I bet those can be shown to increase anxiety and | be bad for mental health | randomdata wrote: | Probably because it is the place most likely to be where you | watch your friends live their apparently perfect lives without | also being able to see their failings. Facebook is not the only | place that provides that type of thing, but brand recognition | in the headline draws attention. | | Real life isn't without its own flaws, but the research shows | an increase in mental health issues when social media is a | factor. That increase is interesting, and worth studying, even | if it is not the only place one can develop mental health | issues. | svachalek wrote: | In addition to other replies here, Facebook is also the only | one of these that is deliberately trying to hurt your mental | health. They have internal studies showing these results and | they actually optimize for them, since angry and depressed | users are known to increase their engagement with the platform. | burlesona wrote: | Most in-person social activity is good for your mental health. | Studies show this includes church: | https://www.npr.org/2019/11/05/776270553/hidden-brain-does-g... | | Facebook is singled out because they are the largest | practitioner of surveillance capitalism. The entire idea of | "optimizing for engagement," where Facebook has been a pioneer | and the largest player, is increasingly being shown to be a | primary driver of political polarization, anxiety, bigotry, and | hate crimes. | | Thus Facebook is the new Big Tobacco. | isodev wrote: | > this includes church | | Except I'm gay, and church is the opposite of a safe place | for my mental health. | AlexandrB wrote: | The Unitarian church ordained their first gay minister in | 1979 and conducted its first same sex marriage ceremony in | 1984: https://www.hrc.org/resources/stances-of-faiths-on- | lgbt-issu... | | Not that I'm advocating for UUA, I'm atheist myself, but | from what I've heard it sounds like a hippie commune | focused around the bible. | hotpotamus wrote: | I'm not super in the know here, but I think it's possible | you're mixing up Unitarianism with Unitarian | Universalism. | vorpalhex wrote: | Have you actually been to a church? The options are wide | and vast. | hestefisk wrote: | Well said. | Minor49er wrote: | It's a safe place for your spiritual health | retrac wrote: | That's probably why some LGBT folks went and founded the | MCC back in the 1970s. | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metropolitan_Community_Church | | The institution of traditional religion played a social | role in Western societies that has not been adequately | patched over by anything else yet. Even as a non-religious | person, I do take seriously the hypothesis that the decline | in regular church attendance accounts for some of the | social isolation crisis. (That is of course, hardly the | whole picture. A similar argument can be made about union | meetings or youth clubs, both of which have also declined | significantly in regular attendance over the last half | century.) | Taywee wrote: | Depends on the church in question. I know gay people who | are accepted by their congregation, and churches that don't | have issues with gay people at all. The biggest LGBT youth | group in my city is organized by and hosted in a Christian | church. | [deleted] | txsoftwaredev wrote: | I've broken plenty of rules in the Bible but still always | welcomed in a church with open arms. | afandian wrote: | It never occurred to me before, but the Roman Catholic | Church, with confession[0], is surely the largest historical | "surveillance capitalism" out there. I wonder if Facebook has | hockey-sticked them yet. | | [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confession_(religion)#Catho | lic... | JohnFen wrote: | > I bet those can be shown to increase anxiety and be bad for | mental health | | Numerous studies over a long period of time indicate the | opposite. | sidcool wrote: | One of those is not like the rest. | mensetmanusman wrote: | https://medium.com/catholic-way-home/the-only-group-to-see-m... | | Heh. The religious were the only group to see improved mental | health during 2020. | | Also, you are right that it should be social media. Nothing | special about Facebook. | 2-718-281-828 wrote: | Off Facebook for more than five years ... and still not mentally | healthy. I feel cheated. | steve_john wrote: | I think it depend on the user's mind. If you like the right way | to use it will be good thing if you are using it for the time | pass then its not good thing. So, the thing is its depend on the | user's mind set | mattwest wrote: | This brings up a bigger question that spans all media, which is: | Why are people willing to give away their attention so easily? | PragmaticPulp wrote: | Anecdotally, Facebook seems relatively tame these days compared | to the firehose of doom & gloom, violent videos, outrage porn, | and outright misinformation that fills Reddit and Twitter. | Browsing Reddit's default feeds or popular posts is a wild | experience these days. | viridian wrote: | It's to the point where I, as someone who has used reddit for | over a decade now (somewhat regrettably), will never, for any | reason, ever click the snoo/homepage link in the top left | corner. The thought of doing so reminds me of the nuclear waste | repository warning: | | This place is not a place of honor... no highly esteemed deed | is commemorated here... nothing valued is here. | racheltanks wrote: | Twitter is poison | nightski wrote: | I have a love/hate relationship with it. I follow many | statistics & data science professionals and it's a great way | to discover new books, resources, and content. But you have | to wade through a lot of crap, even with a heavily curated | feed. It feels like it is getting worse to the point where it | isn't worth it anymore. | Bakary wrote: | What I find odd about Twitter is that the toxicity level is | off the charts. It's not as bad as say, the wilder 4chan | boards or Kiwifarms, but it's worse than almost anything | else. | tmpz22 wrote: | I'd ad Youtube to that list. I turned off personalized ads and | oh boy a whole lot of sexualized Flow Ads and other weird stuff | came up, including ads for Newsmaxx. Absolutely gross that | those are the apparent defaults. | CSMastermind wrote: | Completely agree, Reddit at this point seems detached from | reality. It's hard to believe it's the same site I was on 10 | years ago. | | I scan Facebook once every few days for updates from family | members and frankly I find the experience entirely pleasant. | | Cutting out Twitter and Reddit is one of the best decisions | I've ever made for my mental health. | | For me it's Hackernews and the Wall St. Journal. | tayo42 wrote: | Outrage on reddit is so ridiculous in the last year. I think | its so insane that I don't even feel like I need to | disconnect from it, its just that unrelatable. r/all is just | all outrage topics all the time. The political stuff, the | antiwork stuff, white and black ppl twitter, the woe is me | crap. I cant believe these are real people. Just angry all | the time? | kzz102 wrote: | We shouldn't encourage this type of reporting of academic | results. | | A better headline: "Evidence towards causal relations between | mental health issues and Facebook use for some College students | in 2004". If this doesn't look newsworthy, it's because it isn't. | Single academic result is almost never newsworthy. | Nuzzerino wrote: | No date on the article? | pjscott wrote: | 19 September 2022, for the record. | Lapsa wrote: | ditched the Zuck long ago. failed service | ranger47 wrote: | Who needed a study? We've known this for years, and it was even | speculated at the dawn of Friendster, MySpace, etc. Watching a | society (the US, for example) slowly say "social media is bad" | then continue to use it is like watching a stumbling drunk | declare their ability to quit drinking anytime they want. | therealdrag0 wrote: | Even intuitive things should be studied. It's valuable to know | the scope and context and magnitude of impact. "X is bad" | followed by confabulation, which is how many of these | discussions go, is not helpful. | BrainVirus wrote: | Who needed it? People who like to deny the obvious, even when | the obvious is stated by Ph.Ds. in psychology like Jonathan | Haidt. | jeff-davis wrote: | I'm pleased to see the word "causation" reappear along with the | word "science". | | But I'm disappointed to see the word "proven". It isn't proven, | and there are a number of problems. | | One is that the hypothesis is never really tested, this is just | more data analysis. I don't want to split hairs over the | definition of "science" but if you don't have an experiment where | you intervene in the real world and dispassionately record what | happens, then it's probably not science. | | The scientific method is a causation-finding machine intended to | avoid all of the errors that humans are likely to make. Perhaps | that leads to too few exciting results, so now we have a bunch of | "scientific studies" instead. | oneplane wrote: | While it might not be a record of an experiment, it's a whole | lot better in terms of data analysis than just someone's gut | feeling. That last one was something I expected much more in | the comments where people would just "well duh" this type of | publication. | | At the very least this data analysis shows something with a | trace, instead of just throwing an idea out there and hoping | someone builds a complete thesis around it and starts | experimenting while everyone else is still guessing and having | feelings but not getting anywhere concrete. | theboywho wrote: | I'm starting to suspect HN to have the same effect, the more I | read HN the more unmotivated I feel. | | Unfavorable comparisons with "successful" people/projects who | make it to the front page could be behind the same effects. | seizethecheese wrote: | You could test this by looking at "new" instead of "top". | bjt2n3904 wrote: | As critical as I am about Facebook and social media in general -- | I doubt this has been "proven". | dougmccune wrote: | This was studying Facebook circa 2004-2006. That version of | Facebook was laughably basic at that point. If I remember right | it was a chronological list of posts on your wall. There was no | algorithmic feed. Hell, the news feed at all was only launched in | late 2006. There was no video. There were no ads. Nobody made | content hoping to get rich and outrage didn't sell. If only we | could go back to such an innocent time. | bluecalm wrote: | Idk about Facebook specifically but it seems the old wisdom of | not discussing religion, politics and diet is more relevant than | ever. We have added more topics to the list: controversial | medical procedures, celebrity drama, conspiracy theories etc. | | I stopped using social media for many years, recently came back | to have access to local cycling/running groups and my experience | is largely positive. All I see is cool people doing cool things, | fun events, some local cycling related trade etc. I managed to | make some connections and keep them going thanks to social media | it's just positive experience all around. | | I think Instagram can be like that if you filter out | politics/celebrities and "I have money/am attractive" | influencers. It takes some work for that to stop showing in your | feed and to learn to ignore whatever is left though. | say_it_as_it_is wrote: | Facebook has proven to be the best way for me to keep in touch | with people who I grew up with, or worked with. It has proven to | have a positive impact on my mental health. | [deleted] | sbf501 wrote: | I'd like to see similar study about the original gateway drug: | "24-hour News Channels", which was followed by "24-hour Outrage- | News Channels". Seems like we've been building toward this, the | interactivity of the internet was the paradigm shift (to use a | 90's term). EDIT: I realize it isn't news messing with youths' | self-esteem (well, in some cases it is), but it is related in | that the media is custom-made to drive engagement at all costs. | [deleted] | gergov wrote: | Right, engagement at all cost it is, but there is a fundamental | difference. Television required professionals where even | wrestling and reality TV is scripted: it requires some sort of | willful ignorance from the viewer to engage with it. | | Social media pushes the illusion that you are not engaging with | professionals but peers, and the dominant signals (how many | views, likes, comments, etc.) of this day and age were not | present with TV. This seriously messes with the innate | reasoning of most humans, because for all our individualism we | are norm conforming herd animals. | | Show a kid a celebrity pushing something and they can tell it's | fake. If the same thing is pushed by all of their friends, now | we're in the territory of peer pressure which is a different | ball game! | kennend3 wrote: | > Show a kid a celebrity pushing something and they can tell | it's fake. | | No, they cant. | | How many kids believe the photoshop pics they see? | | Not to single her out, but Kim K is now selling headphones | and her pic in her ad makes her look like a character from | the sims. This is NOT how a normal human being looks without | hours of photoshop work. | | There is a reason we use to have laws around advertising to | children.. they are too young to understand things.. this is | also why you cant legally enter into a contract with a minor. | pjc50 wrote: | > it requires some sort of willful ignorance from the viewer | to engage with it. | | > Show a kid a celebrity pushing something and they can tell | it's fake | | This does not explain the Alex Jones show. | [deleted] | giantg2 wrote: | "Right, engagement at all cost it is" | | Ha I actually read this as en _rage_ ment, which I don't | think is even a real word. | classified wrote: | It has become a real word by now. Culture changes, language | adapts. | PuppyTailWags wrote: | I don't really agree with this. Rush Limbaugh successfully | ran a platform on mostly entirely television that deeply | poisoned the cultural landscape of the USA at the time (he | was defending Reagan's neglect of HIV/AIDS and playing | "another one bites the dust" when Freddie Mercury died), and | laid the foundation on current polarized rhetoric strategies. | He spread lies that Obama wasn't a natural born citizen. He | blamed volcano eruptions on the Affordable Care Act. So on | and so forth. It's spurious to claim that outrage bait on | television hasn't messed up people's brains just because the | internet is doing a better job at it. They're just modeling | what television was already successfully doing. | [deleted] | advantager wrote: | I believe Rush did become famous on television, but after | the mid-90s it was really all about his radio program. So | it might be to your point, fundamentally it isn't the | internet, or TV, maybe it was radio. | | I do believe that the Rush style radio talk show lays the | foundation for Tucker Carlson and all of the conservative | pundit TV programming. Which is the basis for the problems | we see with Facebook / Fake News etc. | derac wrote: | One can trace that lineage in conservative thought back | to the John Birch Society. | | https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Birch_Society | pyuser583 wrote: | Why stop there? Why not Fr. Coughlin or William Jennings | Bryan? | ch4s3 wrote: | Why stop there Girolamo Savonarola was doing it in the | 15th century, or Tiberius and Gaius Gracchus. | dr_dshiv wrote: | > Savonarola | | Love that the Catholic Church burned him at the stake for | being too conservative. Really! Go Renaissance Popery!! | ch4s3 wrote: | Well, heresy and schism officially. But he was more of a | populist than conservative and also weirdly sided with | the invading French king which kind of pissed off the | pope. | bakal wrote: | derac wrote: | It's pretty lame to make fun of a guy dying of AIDS | because you hate that he is gay. Not chad at all. Very | weak. | deltarholamda wrote: | This is a really weird comment, because Limbaugh was almost | entirely radio. His TV show was short-lived and not really | popular, as he wasn't comfortable in the medium and it | showed. He got his start in radio as a DJ, and went on to | basically remake the AM band from farm reports and local | sports talk to talk radio as we now know it. | | This is really basic bio stuff about Limbaugh, and it | doesn't speak well of your other assertions if you got this | part so wrong. | | What's really funny is that during the 90s the "Greatest | Threat To Democracy Ever" WAS talk radio, more or less | solely because the Limbaugh program was so popular. The | targets may change, but the talking points never seem to. | PuppyTailWags wrote: | Hey, thanks for correcting me. You're right that the | issue was Limbaugh's radio program, not his TV. I | apologize for getting my example wrong, but I think my | overall point is still a valid one (that just because | social media is more effective at spewing bad rhetoric | doesn't mean bad rhetoric is ineffective in other media). | dr_dshiv wrote: | Your point was valid but your example was _creepily_ | wrong. | mawise wrote: | Facebook brought us in with the promise of keeping in touch | with friends, but the incentives are to "engagement at all | costs". I'm hoping that if we can offer an alternative that | lets people keep up with their friends without the engagememt | incentive then we could greatly improve societal mental | health. Thats why I build Haven[1] as open source and self | hosted, along with several 3rd party hosting providers. No | central entity means no "engagement at all costs". | | [1] https://havenweb.org | nkingsy wrote: | This is a tragedy of the commons situation because people | cannot help themselves. | | What we are actually seeing is users going to TikTok | because it is even more engaging. | | People may say they want to keep up with their friends, but | they will choose the more engaging activity. | | There is no regulating or out-competing it. | | Governments should provide identification, communication, | community, payments, etc platforms for their citizens, but | entertainment is always going to look like this unless | stoicism is somehow engrained into our culture. | | Entertainment itself is measured by engagement, so it will | end with unlimited personalized ai generated content that | will be almost impossible to put down. | dylan604 wrote: | >This is a tragedy of the commons situation because | people cannot help themselves. | | _SOME_ people cannot help themselves. I spend 0 minutes | on social platforms. I can help myself just fine. Some | people have much more addictive personality traits than | others. Please, don 't paint everyone with the same broad | brush. It doesn't help the conversation in a meaningful | manner | classified wrote: | > I spend 0 minutes on social platforms. | | You're spending time on HN. | eimrine wrote: | But he is not spending time on social platform. | smsm42 wrote: | And he can't wait to tell the Internet how proud he is | about that. | dylan604 wrote: | Only in relation to a thread about how much time people | are spending on the socials. It's part of the | conversation. That's kind of how the work. | nkingsy wrote: | First off you're on hn, which is social media and | absolutely optimized for your specific engagement. | | I also figured the "some" was implied because the world | is a complicated place. I do believe we all have our | weaknesses, though mindless consumption is more | attractive to some than others. | dylan604 wrote: | If you equate HN to actual social platforms then okay. | | The HN "algo" is user driven by fellow readers up- | voting/down-voting which is much more common interests. | There are no "friend" relations on HN. The other | platforms are all advertising based algo driven with | intentional doping to make people addicted to the | platform. This isn't even apples-to-oranges comparison. | | After the dust from Purdue Pharma and the Sacklers | settles and everything gets evaluated, I sincerly hope | that Meta/Zuck,et.al gets investigated in the same line | as Purdue. | cma wrote: | Reddit is vote based so would you include that too? HN | also has advertising (it has hiring ads for ycombinator | companies put in as mostly organic-looking posts with no | [ad] tag). | dylan604 wrote: | I don't want to get into an argument about what an ad is, | but I think we all understand what the difference of ad | driven algos on the social platforms vs hiring blogs, | Who's Hiring, etc on this platform. | | Also, I just never have liked Reddit. | dylan604 wrote: | I never used Friendster, and thought that everyone spending | so much time on MySpace was just wasting time. However, I'd | love for socials to be back to just MySpace levels of | people engaging with each other, sharing music, etc vs the | ad engagement driven by ads instead of common interests. | otikik wrote: | > some sort of willful ignorance | | Not "some sort of willful ignorance". It just requires | "ignorance". I think most of us know someone who thinks that | reality TV is ... well, reality. "It says it in the name". | | > Show a kid a celebrity pushing something and they can tell | it's fake | | Perhaps you have very bright kids. My kid will ask me to buy | two of whatever that person is pushing. He's simply not | equipped to handle marketing at any level, yet. | MandieD wrote: | Up to now, I have vigorously shielded my toddler from | marketing - as far as he knows, the TV occasionally shows | holiday church services and election results, and "his" | laptop shows fairly non-violent excerpts from BBC animal | documentaries and bird-watching videos (he's taken to | asking to watch by making the slurping sounds the desert | rain frog in his favorite video makes as it's eating | termites, then exclaiming "froggy!"). | | I know he needs to be exposed to some marketing while I'm | watching along to talk about it so he isn't completely | defenseless against it later, but I don't think that time | is quite yet. So far, I'm going with his being able to | separate "real" from "pretend" as a minimum. | jdougan wrote: | Start with advertising from the past and work your way | forward? It looks lame now, but that stuff used to | consistently work. | mattnewton wrote: | I'm not sure we're equipped as a society, otherwise why | would marketing budgets be so high? | | I know adults who voted for Trump because they believed the | apprentice gave them an unvarnished view of his character | and decision making prowess in the real world. My own | grandmother would cite episodes of the show. | mcrad wrote: | Engagement with broadcast TV vs with hyper-personalized apps is | a specious comparison. | jjtheblunt wrote: | TiVo monetized hyper-personalized broadcast TV, by | interposing ads based on all sorts of calculated data, into | recorded broadcast TV streams, though. | | So it's more continuous a transition i suspect than people | consider. | kurthr wrote: | TiVo allowed you to skip ads. Was there an earlier or later | version? | | You own the recording... I know there's still 5-15-30sec | skip. | | Hulu, Roku, et al do of course insert their own ads because | they're ad supported. | svachalek wrote: | The psychological manipulation is based on the same | principles, it's just the application is less refined. | samatman wrote: | It is and it isn't, but mostly, it isn't. | | The relentless Skinner Boxing which Facebook and similar | platforms engage in has no parallel in broadcast media, | which can't be algorithmically tuned to harm the victim as | much as possible. | klodolph wrote: | Do you care to elaborate? Why do you say it's specious? | mcrad wrote: | Well engagement implies a certain amount to decision making | and real-time action. TV watching is pretty much passive, | and I just have a hard time believing the brain is impacted | similarly but such different types of activity. | klodolph wrote: | I think "engagement" in the discussion here is more of a | term of art, and it's not really a question of what it | implies. | sbf501 wrote: | I don't think that qualifies as "specious" because I'm | not trying to deceive anyone. You missed the part where I | stated TV isn't interactive. I tried to pose a question | in good faith. Did I fail? I am interested in | information. Using the term "specious" incorrectly, | deliberately or accidentally, is a judgement of the basis | of my argument, which is actually specious. | viridian wrote: | People aren't as unique and individualized as one might | think. A half dozen channels, and thus permutations of | outrage content is likely plenty enough to capture the | overwhelming majority of the population's attention. | swayvil wrote: | Books, radio, tv, videogames, internet, vr... | | A progression of machines for interacting with dreams more | deeply. A progreassion of better and better _dream amplifiers_. | | Dreams becoming a bigger part of our life | | Expert dreamers making the big bucks | | A whole population with one foot in dreamland. | | You ever noticed how fiction is everywhere? And advertising. | And propaganda. | duxup wrote: | My father in law, who suffers from parkinson's calls me several | times a day to leave me voice mails about how terrible the | world is and how scared he is about what is coming. | | If there's a hell I hope there is a special place for 24-hour | news channels and folks who feed fear and skewed garbage to | people and hurt them. | | I sometimes wish I could run a 24 hour news channel that tried | to do more of a mix of content / etc. It might not be popular, | or profitable, but it wouldn't be doom and gloom and conflict | and bait all day. Maybe some stories about rando people's lives | and other things? | lo_zamoyski wrote: | You'd go out of business. | | I'm not dismissing malice or opportunism in the media, but it | is also important to appreciate the situation mass news media | is in. Mass media are extremely dependent on things like | advertising and that's always been the case for as long mass | media have existed. The price of subscription or buying a | paper is simply too meager to cover the costs of running a | paper, for example. Advertising introduces its own perverse | incentives and limitations (you can't bite the hand that | feeds you, for example). | | 24 hour news are, for the most part, useless, so they've got | to fill the air time with sensationalized garbage, and | because there's an arms race, the sensantionalism escalates. | oblib wrote: | >>I'd like to see similar study about the original gateway | drug: "24-hour News Channels" | | Back in the early 80s I was living in LA and I'd grab some food | on the way home from work and the "News" on an independent | station. They had 3 half hour News show back to back. They | started out with "Local News", then moved on to "National | News", and finally "World News". | | At first it didn't seem much different than the big 3 Networks. | Everyday I'd come home from work feeling fine but after a few | months of doing that I realized by the end of the last | broadcast I was very depressed. | | It finally occurred to me, after a few months, that the station | was gathering every tragedy they could find, rapes, robberies, | murders, wars, airplane and auto crashes, etc. So I decided to | stop watching it and immediately went back to my normal, happy, | content self. | | Since I've learned to monitor the "News" as opposed to | consuming it and that's much easier to do when we can pick and | choose what to consume and ignore it with just a click or tap. | And since then I've had quite a few friends and relatives | who're happy and content before and are now in a constant state | of rage because they're pretty much addicted to watching | FOX/CNN/MSNBC, etc. | | That said, I would love to see a serious study on this because | it's grown into a serious and national mental heath problem | here in the U.S. | oDot wrote: | You've reminded me of a very good Norm bit | | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_2ktWtIDQQQ | lifeisstillgood wrote: | We have been gamified. But then again spending 6 hours a day | reading celebrity magazines to r watching daytime TV will | equally rot our sense of balance. | | We some how think this would be six hours replaced with | "improving our minds", visiting museums and working on our | calculus or oil painting. | | I mean we _could_ all do that. we more or less force our | children to do that at school. | | If there was a "improve my mind" button on facebook, do you | think we would all press it? | | I am torn between my pessimism and optimism | Xeoncross wrote: | National parks in the US experienced a surge in interest | after the covid lockdowns. I have hope that while more people | might be falling into the unhealthy trap of news and social | media - a lot of people are breaking free and exploring the | world and it's people and places. | wfbarks wrote: | I took a long break (maybe 5 years or so) but I have recently | started using both FB and Instagram and have been surprised at | how positive my time has been on these platforms. On FB I have | been finding interesting local groups and events (just moved to a | new city) and on Instagram, I have been enjoying seeing updates | from real friends. | | On the other hand I recently deleted Twitter from my phone. I | love twitter for getting interesting infromation and staying up | to date with news, but the whole culture there has just turned | into cheap dunking on one another, and its just guaranteed to | leave you feeling angry about something. Extremely disruptive to | mental state. | | I spend some time on the TikTok-like products as well (youtube | shorts / fb reels) and have found them to be just a really easy | way to completely waste an hour for no reason whatsoever. Less | disruptive to mental state than twitter though. | oneplane wrote: | The issue with the meta products is that no matter how much you | try to personally curate who you see stuff from, they will | insert sponsored content you have no choice in and that can be | real ads but also random posts. | TylerE wrote: | The key to happy Facebooking for me is to keep it to people I | don't routinely have any other way of keeping in touch with - | so it's mostly hobby groups, people I've met while traveling, a | few former co-workers... | | In particular, I do not friend or follow any family, neighbors, | current co-workers, etc. | MattSayar wrote: | I started checking Facebook only on the computer and only when it | organically comes up in my daily browsing (like now!). As it | happens, I check Facebook about 3-4 times a week now, and it's | basically just to Mark as Read my notifications (which are | largely useless). | giuliomagnifico wrote: | > They found a statistically significant worsening in mental | health symptoms, especially depression and anxiety, after the | arrival of Facebook: | | 7% increase in number of students who reported having suffering, | at least once during the preceding year, depression so severe | that it was difficult for them to function | | 20% increase in number of students who reported anxiety disorders | | 2% increase in number of students expected to experience moderate | to severe depression | | 3% increase in number of students experienced impairment to their | academic performance due to depression or anxiety | rconti wrote: | I am suspicious of the methodology because of how quickly | Facebook rolled out across most colleges/Universities. I want | to say within a year. It feels unlikely that the data would be | granular enough (and the survey given frequently enough at each | University) to reach these sorts of conclusions. | whoooooo123 wrote: | Bears proven to shit in woods. | FollowingTheDao wrote: | Link to the working paper is here: | | https://www.econstor.eu/handle/10419/256787 | theropost wrote: | After being off Facebook for a few years, I have started to | clearly see how creepy people really are - it's like everyone has | turned into low level stalkers, but somehow that is okay within | the cult. | sidcool wrote: | Not just FB, LinkedIn has a similar effect, just on a different | demographic. | themitigating wrote: | Do you evidence of that? | DamnInteresting wrote: | I do not care for this trend of omitting the publication date | from news articles. Temporal context is very relevant in news | articles, especially to assess whether the information has been | superseded. | | (I know, one can often find the publication date in the HTML | source, but that requires savvy, and should not be necessary.) | dchftcs wrote: | Yeah, and sometimes that's the point. Some sites do this | probably to improve viewership of older articles. I don't | understand why a university would do this though. | singlow wrote: | Its a Drupal 7 site so every content item has a publication | date in the db since it is part of the root data schema for | posts/pages and all sub-types. In their case they have at least | two content types in their news page. All of the "News" type | articles do display the date but the template for "Research" | articles does not display it. It is possible this was | deliberate but most likely it just was in the default news | template and when they created a custom template for the | research articles they based it on the default page template | which doesn't include a date line. | sna1l wrote: | I don't understand why this is causation vs correlation? | jessenichols wrote: | This just in, food is also misused and proven to cause ill health | in the majority of people, stop eating food now. | holoduke wrote: | Today I disabled Facebook and Instagram. I also removed all | shortlinks to various newssites. I want to avoid them as well. | Including Reddit . The only thing I am allowed to read is | hackernews. I find that one of the few good sources. Even for | general news. | Melatonic wrote: | Do not forget even without an account or the apps they are | tracking the crap out of you everywhere. Shadow profiles and | whatnot. Any website with a little facebook button at the | bottom is a tracker. | colordrops wrote: | An RSS reader with a curated list of sources is good too. | | Google News has become a trash heap, full of gossip and | propaganda, and changes constantly in relation to what I last | searched. It's converging with the Facebook feed | karaterobot wrote: | That's great! Sadly, a lot of the HN front page is just a | direct link to Twitter. Reddit shows up occasionally. It would | be nice if there was a way to filter out sources from the front | page. | ejb999 wrote: | I agree, I can't even get to any of the twitter 'posts' by | clicking on them - all major social media is blocked (by me) | in my hosts file - which rules out a lot of the low-effort | reposts from twitter. | askafriend wrote: | Now do a study for Hacker News | jrochkind1 wrote: | Is the research design capable of distinguishing from the | opposite causation here; what if people who are more depressed | are more likely to use facebook more? | | This occurred to me because I more and more think of social media | use in terms of addiction. For more typical addictive behavior | with drugs, we are more likely to think people who are depressed | are more likely to develop addictive relationship to alcohol (or | other drugs), than we are to think using alcohol (or other drugs) | too much will makes you depressed. Although I suppose it can be | somewhat circular and complex. | pjscott wrote: | Yes, the study design is able to tell which way the causality | points. Not all colleges got access to Facebook at the same | time (back before it was open to the general public) so this is | sort of a natural experiment: you can look at the colleges that | had Facebook access and compare them to the ones that didn't, | assuming that they're probably pretty similar in all other | confounding variables, and that people don't choose their | college based on whether or not it has Facebook access. For | more information on this type of design, the phrase to google | is "difference in differences". | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Difference_in_differences | taytus wrote: | From all my digital addictions, FB is the one I have most under | control. | | I have to do a lot of blocking but the reality is that I can now | say I do enjoy Facebook. | | My timeline is filled with content I meticulously have | curated:Woodworking, Baking, Canoeing, Startups, Beekeeping, | Jeeps. | | But... it shouldn't take all this work to enjoy it. | standardUser wrote: | I use FB in that same way. Nearly all of my "friends" are muted | and most of the content is from pages and groups I have chosen. | But it does feel like I'm fighting the platform to make it work | in a way that works for me. God forbid they should empower the | user instead of perpetually trying to squeeze more blood from | the stone. | taytus wrote: | >But it does feel like I'm fighting the platform | | I couldn't agree more. | prox wrote: | Because we aren't the user, advertisers are. We are the | hypnotized consumers of the lights in the box. | ramesh31 wrote: | Facebook was just the beginning. It feels crude almost in | comparison to the new generation of designer drugs (TikTok et. | al). | standardUser wrote: | Sometimes when I'm scrolling Instagram I'm reminded of the sad | era of "channel flipping" where we would just watch "whatever's | on" while endless ads were blasted at our faces. | | At least now we have some control over our poison, though few | seem to bother exercising that control. | Taylor_OD wrote: | Um... I installed Instagram recently for the first time. | Every 5th post or so is an ad. That you have no choice | over... And there are a lot of suggested content posts which | you have no control over. | | It's like the same as channel flipping and getting ads | blasted at you but now the ads are smarter/more targeted. | standardUser wrote: | Yeah, the ads are actually relevant sometimes and they | don't demand 30 seconds of my life, so massive improvements | all around. I don't see much suggested content unless I | scroll too long, at which point I probably do need some | more content. | JohnFen wrote: | I honestly don't see targeted ads as an improvement at | all. I see them as the opposite. | floren wrote: | Here's the thing about Instagram: aside from posts by | your actual real-life friends, everything you see is an | ad. It's either a literal ad, or it's a popular user | trying to sell you their t-shirts/newsletter/onlyfans. My | wife likes to look at Instagram videos of cute kids and | dogs, and whenever she shows me one the text at the | bottom says something like "Our merch shop is open | again!!!" | gjulianm wrote: | Although TikTok is fairly addictive, I find it's far better at | showing you content you actually like instead of | outrage/emotional/clickbait content. It's very easy to get into | niches you actually enjoy with actual decent content | (woodworking, cleaning, plants, DIY, cats in my case, for | example) and actual people as creators, instead of whatever | reposted content factory managed to cheat FB/Instagram | algorithm this time. | tenebrisalietum wrote: | Political content in particular seems to not rear its ugly | head on my Tiktok except rarely. Not even political ads. This | is something that didn't ever happen with Facebook even after | unfollowing everyone. | advantager wrote: | TikTok has great content and I am far more entertained and | educated there than any other of the engagement-driven | "social media" apps (i.e. Meta products). | | The problem I find is that it is basically mindless | engagement, everything is really too short to get into it, | the comments are garbage, and it's extremely entertaining and | therefore addictive and a waste of my free time. | stackbutterflow wrote: | I fear to imagine what the next iteration will be. Probably | someone, somewhere is already working on it. | labarilem wrote: | Maybe the AI will also generate personalized content instead | of only recommending it? | 99_00 wrote: | The study uses historical data, change in mental health before | and after Facebook was introduced to a campus. Which is a very | cool way to make use of a natural control. Nice study. | | Seems clear facebook had negative impact on mental health on | campus. | | Facebook then was also likely very different from Facebook now. | So not exactly sure what recommendations for today can be drawn | from it. | | It's interesting to note that the data shows facebook was | damaging mental health at the same time that many readers of this | comment were most enthusiastic about Facebook. ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2022-09-22 23:01 UTC)