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

Facebook knows Instagram is toxic for teen girls, company documents show

wsj.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

501–510 of 687 posts

Re: Facebook knows Instagram is toxic for teen girls, company documents show

#501

Post by geebee »

standardUser wrote: post #497
uniqueid wrote: post #459

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It used to be that if you were queer - in any sense of the word - and lived in one of the countless small, conservative, traditional communities in this country, you were shit out of luck. As bad as that was, in the past you could move to another of the 380,000 towns on this planet. Today, if your social media trail renders you unemployable (or the target of persecution) there's no longer any corner of the planet to…

Humiliation, bullying, shame, abuse.... these things have been inflicted upon millions of young people generation after generation just because they didn't fit a very narrow mold. But you want me to shed a tear for who exactly? People who wrote hateful things and chose to share them with the public? Those are the very people dishing out the humiliation and shame and abuse. I for one am very happy that those behaviors…

People you care about will regularly experience this, if it hasn't happened already. You'll be shocked and depressed when you discover who is doling out the shame and abuse, you will not recognize who you thought they were, and you will discover that if you stand up for them, you will also become a target.

I find it bewildering and worrisome, the way people think that this little monster won't grow and will stay on their leash.

Re: Facebook knows Instagram is toxic for teen girls, company documents show

#502

Post by [deleted] »

Tarsul wrote: post #412
deepfriedrice wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The cdc [1] has some figures that show a remarkably clear trend upward after ~2007. But IIRC it's pretty even across gender. [1] https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db352-h.pdf

thanks for picking up my slack. Another CDC study/poll is shows even worse data than I imagined[1]: e.g. ~8% of high schoolers try to kill themselves every year (I know, sounds unbelievable. Please, everyone, check yourself and correct me if possible). The numbers for girls are higher than for boys but the rises over the years (and the influence through instagram) not necessarily, see the diagrams. [1] https://www.cd…

[deleted]

Re: Facebook knows Instagram is toxic for teen girls, company documents show

#503

Post by voidnullnil »

atonalfreerider wrote: post #454
wussboy wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have a personal grudge against anyone saying "Why don't the parents take some responsibility to combat a multi-billion dollar company who puts the resources of small countries in to making their children behave in detrimental ways." But I'll not get in to that. :) Facebook and Instagram are drug dealers. Sure, they're not physically distributing a substance, but the social interactions they provide are every bit as…

Ditto for online pornography. And unlike chemical drugs that have to be transported and administered, these images and videos fly through the wires into childrens' bedrooms. I know, because like most children, I was exposed to online porn at a young age and was addicted to it well into my adult life. These companies need regulation, because they are bad actors.

>[porn companies] need regulation

No, nothing needs regulation. Stop making the internet fucking worse. Can we go back to 2000 now (not that it was good then either since the internet was fundamentally broken already)? This is like the bat shit insane morons who think having a popup about cookies on every page is solving the """privacy""" issue.

Literally every single political issue on HN is bogus. Take the ad blocking issue for instance, nothing that has ads actually matters. Your "solutions" like Brave are pure garbage.

The "privacy" issue doesn't exist because if we were using sane tech instead of webshit, there wouldn't be any tracking since it wouldn't be conceptually possible. Why the hell can tech even track you in the first place for reading static documents? This is a poor analog that cannot even compete with paper newspapers (which are also much more legible because they are not on LCDs).

Net neutrality doesn't matter because nobody can ELI5 why I should care about it. Since the internet is all garbage, it shouldn't be an issue that it's expensive. Just don't use it. Make a free replacement. Cuban citizens have already done it.

Now let me try and list CURRENT_YEAR.addictions:

- Games

- Working out

- Porn

- Social media

- TV (youtube or whatever you use now)

- HN (muh dunning kruger syndrome, imposter, et al)

- Eating

- Lotto tickets

- Stock market

- Programming

- Working

- Drugs

- Things that are sort of drugs but not

- Any substance what so ever

- Benchmarking

- Politics

- Literally any hobby

Oh look guys, HN needs to be regulated because I can come up with a person who has problems because of it.

Guys we need to regulate fat and high calorie food. Oh wait it grows on trees.

People who see a problem and immediately go "we need regulation to solve this" (and even proceed to come up with some ad-hoc hypothesis of how it solves the problem after it's proven that it doesn't solve it in a substantial way) are morons. There is actually something wrong with their brain. They hold back progress. Every new law is a potential stumbling block for progress and thus why new legislation should be avoided at all costs. See MECHANISM NOT POLICY article on wikipedia to see how people already knew about this 70 years ago in tech.

Re: Facebook knows Instagram is toxic for teen girls, company documents show

#504

Post by tommymachine »

foldr wrote: post #500
tommymachine wrote: post #481

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They used to call keeping your personal life separate from work "being professional". Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong here... don't most companies hire people to do a job, not to flaunt who they are in their private lives in a distracting manner?

Yes. I am so sick of hearing straight people talking about their spouses and children in a professional context. Political correctness has reached such extremes that we were expected to make contributions to a gift for one of my straight colleagues after he announced to the whole team that his opposite sex partner was pregnant. I really wish people would keep their sexual predilections to themselves.

Is that because you find it irritating that sex can mean something beyond erotic pleasure for straight people (i.e. procreation)?

Re: Facebook knows Instagram is toxic for teen girls, company documents show

#505

Post by xgulfie »

standardUser wrote: post #449

It used to be that if you were queer - in any sense of the word - and lived in one of the countless small, conservative, traditional communities in this country, you were shit out of luck. Now, thanks to the internet, there exists inclusive and positive communities for people of every type of background and experience. This simply did not exist for most people just a few decades ago, but now it's accessible to almost…

As a queer in several senses of the word, Instagram is not a place to find a supportive queer community. Instagram is the most one-way of all social networks — i.e. it's almost all plebs following celebrities.

Re: Facebook knows Instagram is toxic for teen girls, company documents show

#506

Post by dillondoyle »

makeworld wrote: post #474
jlkuester7 wrote: post #472

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wait, what? Why should intellectual homogeneity be a requirement (or expectation) for coworkers? That seems like the opposite of encouraging diversity.

The key word is "tolerate". If you're gay, you're going to want to be hired by someone who will tolerate you being gay, otherwise you'll have to hide part of yourself and/or be fearful at work.

Just the fact that we're arguing and using terms like 'tolerate' just shows how wildly off base parent comment is to the reality of queerness and discrimination.

what about workplaces or spaces that simply 'tolerate' people of color? it puts that word in that context into a different light that more here might understand.

that language & context is so tinged it reveals real problems that still exist despite the mainstreaming of queer culture and appropriation that exists now - good or bad.

Re: Facebook knows Instagram is toxic for teen girls, company documents show

#507

Post by standardUser »

geebee wrote: post #501
standardUser wrote: post #497

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Humiliation, bullying, shame, abuse.... these things have been inflicted upon millions of young people generation after generation just because they didn't fit a very narrow mold. But you want me to shed a tear for who exactly? People who wrote hateful things and chose to share them with the public? Those are the very people dishing out the humiliation and shame and abuse. I for one am very happy that those behaviors…

People you care about will regularly experience this, if it hasn't happened already. You'll be shocked and depressed when you discover who is doling out the shame and abuse, you will not recognize who you thought they were, and you will discover that if you stand up for them, you will also become a target. I find it bewildering and worrisome, the way people think that this little monster won't grow and will stay on t…

I find it confusing that people fail to to see the obvious switcharoo. It used to be unacceptable to be queer, non-white, non-Christian, non-male and it was OK to mock people for those traits. Now, it's all backwards, and it's OK to be queer, non-white, non-Christian etc. What is no longer OK is mocking people for these traits.

So, now the people who are getting the pointy end of the stick are the people who used to do the poking. I for one prefer the new paradigm to the old.

The anti-cancel-culture people make it sound like they are being horribly oppressed. But for what? The color of their skin? Their gender or sexuality? No, simply for the dumb words they insist on uttering. Say what you what, when you want, to whomever you want, but don't tell me you realistically expect there to be no consequences.

Re: Facebook knows Instagram is toxic for teen girls, company documents show

#508

Post by foldr »

tommymachine wrote: post #504
foldr wrote: post #500

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes. I am so sick of hearing straight people talking about their spouses and children in a professional context. Political correctness has reached such extremes that we were expected to make contributions to a gift for one of my straight colleagues after he announced to the whole team that his opposite sex partner was pregnant. I really wish people would keep their sexual predilections to themselves.

Is that because you find it irritating that sex can mean something beyond erotic pleasure for straight people (i.e. procreation)?

Sorry, I thought the sarcasm would be obvious.

I’m not irritated by my straight colleagues talking about their families.

You, however, seem to have a problem with your gay colleagues talking about theirs.

As a side note, quite a lot of straight people are irritated by the fact that straight sex can mean more than just erotic pleasure (hence the popularity of contraception).

Re: Facebook knows Instagram is toxic for teen girls, company documents show

#509

Post by Darmody »

SavantIdiot wrote: post #480
uniqueid wrote: post #459

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It used to be that if you were queer - in any sense of the word - and lived in one of the countless small, conservative, traditional communities in this country, you were shit out of luck. As bad as that was, in the past you could move to another of the 380,000 towns on this planet. Today, if your social media trail renders you unemployable (or the target of persecution) there's no longer any corner of the planet to…

> As bad as that was, in the past you could move to another of the 380,000 towns on this planet. 1. That assumes you have the money to move, can land in a new city and find housing, and then find a job. Pre-internet this was absolutely nontrivial. 2. It's not 380,000 towns on this planet, in the 80's/90's it was just a handful of cities that were more evolved, like San Francisco or P Town. There's a reason those citi…

I just want to point out that people moved without any money back in the day.

Now we play it safe. We save money. We find an apartment, a job and then we move. We live comfortably now and we don't want to lose that when moving. You can even see it today with people from certain parts of the world. They leave with nothing else than maybe a 20 dollar phone hoping they'll be able to call their family once they get somewhere.

Re: Facebook knows Instagram is toxic for teen girls, company documents show

#510

Post by dillondoyle »

tommymachine wrote: post #481
makeworld wrote: post #474

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The key word is "tolerate". If you're gay, you're going to want to be hired by someone who will tolerate you being gay, otherwise you'll have to hide part of yourself and/or be fearful at work.

They used to call keeping your personal life separate from work "being professional". Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong here... don't most companies hire people to do a job, not to flaunt who they are in their private lives in a distracting manner?

wow. do you think people of color should somehow separate their skin & culture as to maintain 'professionalism' in the office? you can not 'separate' race just as you can't separate ones gender or sexual orientation. it is simply a fact and truth of that persons existence.

the mere existence of us queer people is not flaunting anything. the expression of our true selfs does not 'flaunt' and thinking it's some kind of attack on 'professionalism' is just backwards.

my life is not distracting, just as your life is not.

Post reply on HN