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

Post by noahtallen » Tue, Sep 14, 2021, 11:40 PM UTC

topspin wrote: post #596

riversflow wrote: post #590

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wikipedia, Github and Stackoverflow don't really have a "feed" much less a opaque, hidden algorithm to induce addictive behavior behind the feed. They don't press you into the app and then send you frequent push notifications. Gamification is benign compared to an interactive news feed developed to drive ad sales. I find pointing at especially wikipedia, but also github as being designed to maximize engagement compar…

> Wikipedia, Github and Stackoverflow don't really have a "feed" All three have various feed mechanisms. They all have various ranking systems. Every one of them have people employed (even if mere 'volunteers') to 'maximize engagement.' And every one of these systems have people obsessed with their profile. Every. Single. One. They're just mostly not 'teen girls' and so the 'problem' makes for poor headline material.…

Post by TeeMassive » Tue, Sep 14, 2021, 11:47 PM UTC

pfortuny wrote: post #296

blakesterz wrote: post #2

https://archive.is/egPlc “The research that we’ve seen is that using social apps to connect with other people can have positive mental-health benefits,” CEO Mark Zuckerberg said at a congressional hearing... “We make body image issues worse for one in three teen girls,” said one slide from 2019, summarizing research about teen girls who experience the issues. “Teens blame Instagram for increases in the rate of anxiet…

"Using social apps to connect with other people can have positive mental-health benefits" That statement cannot be false because it is devoid of any content, being a mere hypothetical. The fact that it is surrounded by "research" is meaningless as well, as the aforementioned sentence is like saying "the elements of the empty set fulfil all properties"... So no, they are not contradicting themselves. They are simply a…

Post by uniqueid » Tue, Sep 14, 2021, 11:55 PM UTC

ssully wrote: post #494

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…

Kind of wild to say gay people actually didn't have it that bad, and that getting cancelled today is actually worse.

Post by foobarian » Tue, Sep 14, 2021, 11:59 PM UTC

wussboy wrote: post #200

andrewingram wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I often think of Facebook/Zuckerberg as the perfect example of why having a mission statement (something something connecting all the people) that seems perfectly non-controversial in a vacuum, often leads to a willing delusion that this must mean it's always a good thing and justifies any means. They reach a point where they're fundamentally unable to honestly ask themselves whether their "good thing" is actually go…

This is a very interesting point. As someone who wants to start an organization with a very strong mission statement, it brings a sense of caution. Is it the mission statement itself which is dangerous? Or is it possible to come up with a "good" one?

Post by sizzle » Wed, Sep 15, 2021, 12:07 AM UTC