Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Researchers, lawmakers want Facebook's mental health research

npr.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

221–230 of 231 posts

Re: Researchers, lawmakers want Facebook's mental health research

#221

Post by Kranar »

zepto wrote: post #217
nl wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's worth noting that in this case (and in most discussions around non-IP law) the consensus HN view is usually what an informed person thinks the law should be based on something they heard on the news once and extended to try to generalise to some new situation that has never been tested in court. Kranar is basically right here. It isn't at all clear that FB would be liable, and there isn't even a particularly str…

This may be true, in the sense that they cannot be sued at the drop of a hat, however it doesn’t mean this kind of research can’t cause legal problems for them over time. Torts are not the only problem for them to worry about. Regulation and legislation are also legal risks for them. The general argument that it’s a bad idea for them to admit this still holds. Generically moaning about how people are speaking from a…

>Generically moaning about how people are speaking from a position of being uninformed.

That's because you're misrepresenting my position, which I have been very careful to explain.

There is nothing wrong or shameful about being uninformed on a topic and wanting to discuss topics that one is uninformed about. I am uninformed on a lot of topics, including law, and I'd love to participate in a discussion to better inform myself. I also encourage people to seek out information and participate in discussions that they do not understand, it's a great way to learn.

My complaint is that on this site, people who are uninformed speak with a degree of certitude that a reader who didn't know any better could confuse with expertise, and that results in widespread misinformation and degrades trust in this site. It also discourages actual experts from participating in discussions since people informed on a topic have to then compete with those who are uninformed, and based on my own experience having done so repeatedly, the amount of effort needed to do so is disproportionate. It's a lot easier to spread false information that's appealing and sounds good than it is to spread truthful information.

Asking questions is great, having experts answer questions is great, having people with different backgrounds relating topics outside of their area of expertise is also great and can lead to unique insights. But having someone make bold, unverifiable claims and everyone else upvoting and giving those claims prominence when they are false, simply because it sounds appealing is not good because it pushes away people who are experts.

Re: Researchers, lawmakers want Facebook's mental health research

#222

Post by zepto »

Kranar wrote: post #221
zepto wrote: post #217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This may be true, in the sense that they cannot be sued at the drop of a hat, however it doesn’t mean this kind of research can’t cause legal problems for them over time. Torts are not the only problem for them to worry about. Regulation and legislation are also legal risks for them. The general argument that it’s a bad idea for them to admit this still holds. Generically moaning about how people are speaking from a…

>Generically moaning about how people are speaking from a position of being uninformed. That's because you're misrepresenting my position, which I have been very careful to explain. There is nothing wrong or shameful about being uninformed on a topic and wanting to discuss topics that one is uninformed about. I am uninformed on a lot of topics, including law, and I'd love to participate in a discussion to better info…

> My complaint is that on this site, people who are uninformed speak with a degree of certitude that a reader who didn't know any better could confuse with expertise, and that results in widespread misinformation and degrades trust in this site.

I’m not misrepresenting you.

Are you somebody who doesn’t know any better? I don’t think think so, so why are you trying to protect this imaginary victim?

Do you speak with a degree of certitude? I think you do.

It’s pretty easy to question unverifiable claims, whereas complaining about other people’s tone of confidence while doing the same thing yourself just seems like it’s not likely to have a useful effect. It too is just a generic and unverifiable claim.

You aren’t wrong that misinformation spreads on public fora. However there is no evidence that you are an authority on how to resolve that issue.

Re: Researchers, lawmakers want Facebook's mental health research

#224

Post by user120894 »

Being in the tech field, platforms like LinkedIn though very helpful with getting jobs and connecting with people, also creates a huge sense of self-doubt and always makes you feel you haven't achieved enough, even though you actually have. Can't even avoid going on there when looking for jobs with all the notifications and everything. Not sure what could be changed on LinkedIn to change that.

Re: Researchers, lawmakers want Facebook's mental health research

#225

Post by nearbuy »

goldcd wrote: post #106
nearbuy wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The U.S. did ban alcohol once. It didn't go over well.

and I believe it did reduce suicide rates. I think if I had to summarize, voters will vote to give themselves choices (however harmful) - whilst patting themselves on the back for voting to restrict others for their own protection.

I completely agree.

There's an additional aspect, though. Voters will vote against new restrictions for themselves, but will vote to keep existing restrictions that have been around a long time.

A fun example (quoted from https://slatestarcodex.com/2018/01/11/self-serving-bias):

> Oregon is one of two US states that bans self-service gas stations. Recently, they passed a law relaxing this restriction – self-service is permissible in some rural counties during odd hours of the night. Outraged Oregonians took to social media to protest that self-service was unsafe, that it would destroy jobs, that breathing in gas fumes would kill people, that gas pumping had to be performed by properly credentialed experts – seemingly unaware that most of the rest of the country and the world does it without a second thought.

So maybe we like freedoms that we're used to, but also like the benefits (or perceived benefits in the above example) of restrictions that we're used to.

(I don't know if disapproval of allowing self-service was widespread or was just a small number of people posting on social media, but it makes a good story.)

Re: Researchers, lawmakers want Facebook's mental health research

#226

Post by mastrsushi »

quelltext wrote: post #113
mastrsushi wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sites where you can peek into other people's lives, or at least what you think is. To me HN is nothing more innocent than a virtual programming club.

I sometimes spend hours after work browsing HN and reading articles about tech, trying to keep up with new frameworks or concepts. Seeing everyone understanding stuff in comments is sometimes very depressing as I feel under pressure to match up to what others seem to grok so easily. So, it can be quite the same as Instagram. The comments on HN are often similar in nature to the Instagram posts in that they only show…

Driving to the rich part of town and seeing pretty people in German Luxury Vehicles cut you off could be considered depressing.

The difference between this, HN and social media is that you have an encapsulated view of what you think is someone's personal life.

Some guy on the headline of HN makes a career out of implementing Ruby interpreters. That's great, but that's his work life. He could be divorced with 4 kids. The rich guy with the hot wife that cut you off, he could be an attorney for ExxonMobil or some other miserable high paying role.

Social media is false proof that regardless of status or true well being, you have the opportunity to paint the shape of your life.

Re: Researchers, lawmakers want Facebook's mental health research

#227

Post by nl »

zepto wrote: post #222
Kranar wrote: post #221

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Generically moaning about how people are speaking from a position of being uninformed. That's because you're misrepresenting my position, which I have been very careful to explain. There is nothing wrong or shameful about being uninformed on a topic and wanting to discuss topics that one is uninformed about. I am uninformed on a lot of topics, including law, and I'd love to participate in a discussion to better info…

> My complaint is that on this site, people who are uninformed speak with a degree of certitude that a reader who didn't know any better could confuse with expertise, and that results in widespread misinformation and degrades trust in this site. I’m not misrepresenting you. Are you somebody who doesn’t know any better? I don’t think think so, so why are you trying to protect this imaginary victim? Do you speak with a…

The issue is that statements here about topics people don't understand are often outright wrong, but go unchallenged.

For example you said that FB can't be sued over this. That's wrong - it's just unlikely to succeed under current laws.

The rest of their problems with it are probably true, but the specific point is incorrect. That's the point being made here.

Re: Researchers, lawmakers want Facebook's mental health research

#228

Post by zepto »

nl wrote: post #227
zepto wrote: post #222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> My complaint is that on this site, people who are uninformed speak with a degree of certitude that a reader who didn't know any better could confuse with expertise, and that results in widespread misinformation and degrades trust in this site. I’m not misrepresenting you. Are you somebody who doesn’t know any better? I don’t think think so, so why are you trying to protect this imaginary victim? Do you speak with a…

The issue is that statements here about topics people don't understand are often outright wrong , but go unchallenged. For example you said that FB can't be sued over this. That's wrong - it's just unlikely to succeed under current laws. The rest of their problems with it are probably true, but the specific point is incorrect . That's the point being made here.

> For example you said that FB can't be sued over this.

Are you sure? Where?

> The issue is that statements here about topics people don't understand are often outright wrong, but go unchallenged.

Are you sure you are responding to the correct commenter? Here’s something I did write:

> It’s pretty easy to question unverifiable claims…

Which is what I recommend when you see something that you think is outright wrong.

Moaning long windedly about the fact that people say things you think are wrong is pointless.

If you see something you think is wrong or unclear to you, you can contribute to the conversation by asking a clarifying question.

Re: Researchers, lawmakers want Facebook's mental health research

#229

Post by connorlay »

diamond_hands wrote: post #162
connorlay wrote: post #147

Back in college I enrolled in a human-computer interaction course as part of a double major I was pursing at the time. A large body of newly-published research at the time, in 2016, was finding statistically significant positive correlations between the use of social media and rates of self-reported depression. As someone who has struggled with depression their entire life, 2016 was the year I deleted my Facebook acc…

Do you happen to have a link? Would love to share it with some friends showing signs of depression who are heavy social media users

I don't have it readily available, but I'll dig around and see if I can find what we covered in class. IIRC it was primarily focused on teenagers in the United States.

Re: Researchers, lawmakers want Facebook's mental health research

#230

Post by jfengel »

teclordphrack2 wrote: post #137
PragmaticPulp wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> IDK how to explain, I don't even have any friends on there I follow. Social media is best used for keeping in touch with friends and family. If you're just browsing popular photos from people you don't know, it's basically an interactive and targeted version of watching TV. We all grew up understanding that endless TV consumption is an unhealthy activity that we should minimize, but it has taken a while for the sam…

> Social media is best used for keeping in touch with friends and family. None fake friends and family. Got a handful of fam that are so fake with what they post. Act like they do it all and now one helps them. Turns out they are narcissistic users.

Question: what does "fake" mean here?

I've seen it a lot, and it's clearly negative, but I don't know exactly what makes somebody "fake". Is it that they tell a lot of lies? Or that they're not trustworthy friends? Or just that they're not very good people?

Post reply on HN