Why some researchers think I’m wrong about social media and mental illness • Hacker News Board

Re: Why some researchers think I’m wrong about social media and mental illness

#331

Post by marttt » Wed, Apr 19, 2023, 4:58 PM UTC

throwaway894345 wrote: post #242

rqtwteye wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think social media amplified trends that were there before. I remember when I came to the US in 2000 it was pretty fashionable to say “I am angry” all the time. And the hatred at politicians was pretty pronounced too. And the cable news was already spreading fear and anger. Personally I think modern media starting with cable TV allowed hatemongers to easily reach large groups. The internet just made it much worse.…

I mean, there was anger at politicians, but it was mostly "all politicians are corrupt". I certainly don't remember people saying "I am angry" all the time. I wonder if this was a coastal thing (e.g., the 'Occupy' movement seemed angry in a way that I couldn't relate to having lived my whole life in the midwest) and social media amplified it and spread it across the country? I do recall online discourse being a lot a…

> I do recall online discourse being a lot angrier and less civil (not merely "more critical", but a lot more personal attacks, hateful generalizations, caricatures, etc).

Tangentially related: I wonder how Usenet groups or 1990s/early 2000s mailing lists compare to today's social media in terms of toxicity. Seems like the "netiquette" mostly worked those days; then again, one can probably easily spot ridiculous trolling or bullying in list archives as well (I like old mailing lists, so I think I have seen many remarkable rants over the years -- to the point that they have seemed conceptually interesting, a peculiar form of utterly irresponsible postmodernist stream-of-conciousness-literature if you will).

The nature of e-mail -- free-form composition, often resulting in lengthy, thoroughly argued replies -- probably did keep some of the anger and emotional arguments at bay, though. Could be that 1990s/2000s hackers were also more eloquent people, but this feels like more of a myth.

Hypothesis: if most online environments would still encourage barebones free-form composition (like e-mail; social media pushes one toward tight and thus sometimes overly straightforward expressions [1]), we would possibly notice more high-quality writing and wordsmiths in the internet. (Proof: go read the lengthy posts of your favorite HN commenter.)

1: See Uni of Chicago-Illinois communications researcher Zizi Papacharissi's work on "affective storytelling". An 2015 article with 250+ citations, analysing Twitter coverage during the resignation of Hosni Mubarak and online iterations of the Occupy movement: https://zizi.people.uic.edu/Site/Research_files/Papacharissi...

Re: Why some researchers think I’m wrong about social media and mental illness

#332

Post by ThomPete » Wed, Apr 19, 2023, 4:58 PM UTC

jterrys wrote: post #107

ThomPete wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wind and solar the two darlings of climate catastrophists is less than 3% of the worlds energy consumption and they will not be able to help getting the 3 billion people who uses less energy than a US fridge per year into the modern era. Fossile fuels is not going anywhere as it's used for the 4 pillars of modern society, steel, fertilizers, concrete and plastic for which there is no realistic alternative. Wind and s…

Considering that: The U.S by itself consumes and pollutes an excessive amount even proportionally compared to China , there's definite optimizations in consumption patterns that can be made to reduce total overall carbon footprint. Plastics are still everywhere and recycling is considered a scam here. It's done so by design by oil companies. Yes, every single Styrofoam takeout container accumulates waste, especially…

You have to come up with a better alternative that doesn't take things away.

Your examples are good examples of things that are not better alternatives, they are worse.

I don't think most people realize just how unique a material plastic for instance is.

Re: Why some researchers think I’m wrong about social media and mental illness

#333

Post by ThomPete » Wed, Apr 19, 2023, 5:00 PM UTC

Paul-Craft wrote: post #180

1827162 wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It appears to me that fears over catastrophic climate change are yet another moral panic. Amplified by social media this time. As with other moral panics (e.g. child abductions, pedophilia), the problem exists, but is blown way out of proportion by the media. In reality, I believe there of course will be changes in the weather patterns due to a relatively small increase in temperature, but it's not going to be the en…

I'm not sure what the source of your doubt here is. There is piles and piles of evidence that we are in for a world of hurt in the coming several decades.

No there isn't. There isn't a single scientifically proven consequence of climate change we don't know how to deal with.

Re: Why some researchers think I’m wrong about social media and mental illness

#334

Post by max51 » Wed, Apr 19, 2023, 5:02 PM UTC

idontknowifican wrote: post #108

AlexandrB wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Newspapers and magazines didn't microtarget their audience or have endless streams of content. This is like saying "look at all the people riding horses in old pictures, cars can't be that bad". That's not even getting into the level of corporate surveillance social media and online advertising have brought us.

what on earth are you talking about? newspapers have existed to control the narrative since inception. look at how they’ve been used, and listen to the lead editors talk about using their influence. it’s a slightly less targeted ad, sure, but my dad only reads conservative papers, and they don’t seem to be written with a common perspective

The difference is that a new article carefully chosen to fit your preferences doesn't magically appear on your lap every time you finish reading (or rejecting if you don't like it) the previous one. You also can't swift quickly through hundreds of headlines to pick what interest you the most when you are dealing with physical medias. You are stuck with whatever you brought with you.

Re: Why some researchers think I’m wrong about social media and mental illness

#335

Post by mock-possum » Wed, Apr 19, 2023, 5:04 PM UTC

psychphysic wrote: post #21

It's quite hard for me to judge this topic because I am so thoroughly convinced that social media is toxic for mental health. I think unfortunately it has become pervasive enough that you can't avoid experiencing it's toxic influence. There has been a complete loss in any interest in meeting a middle ground and like the use of stocks in medieval times the concept of cancellation is much more power than any reality. T…

So if social media is toxic for mental health, why am I immune? What’s special about me?

Re: Why some researchers think I’m wrong about social media and mental illness

#336

Post by rayiner » Wed, Apr 19, 2023, 5:06 PM UTC

freejazz wrote: post #315

rayiner wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There's no middle ground between wanting to kill someone and wanting to let them live in peace. If a person thinks someone is a born child molester (a "groomer" in the modern Newspeak) and that person thinks the punishment for child molestation is death (as is fashionable in Florida of late) there's no way they can meet that person in the middle. You can start by pulling back from the obvious rhetorical flourishes.…

>Like is it possible for you to acknowledge that folks in Florida don’t want to kill sexual minorities, but are also wary of a resurgent sexual revolution that could change the behaviors of kids who aren’t born gay or trans? Like can you seriously deny that there is an emerging trend of sexual identity becoming a form of self expression? Sorry, but what's the problem with sexual identity being a form of self expressi…

[flagged]

Re: Why some researchers think I’m wrong about social media and mental illness

#337

Post by msla » Wed, Apr 19, 2023, 5:08 PM UTC

rayiner wrote: post #325

plorg wrote: post #286

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What about drag shows is inappropriate, for what ages, and what intervention would you consider reasonable to prevent the harm of children? Plenty of drag shows are designed to be family-friendly, and generally parents can just not bring their kids to things that they don't think are appropriate for them. In any case, the way you write about self expression (and the Matt Walsh-level unseriousness of describing drag s…

[flagged]

> Drag shows involve violating social norms as a form of voluntary self expression. Such rejection of social norms should not be granted state sanction by hosting such events in public libraries.

Mere assertion. Not an argument.

The supposed arguments against drag queen story time are either unserious hand-wringing about supposed harms coming from drag, a form of art older than modern gender roles, or simple threats of violence. Neither are actual arguments, just argument-shaped word noises.

> By contrast, trans people presenting consistent with their biological gender identity isn't a form of voluntary self expression, any more than it is for a cis person to do so.

"Biological gender identity" is ill-defined here, to the extent I honestly don't know what you mean: Do you mean a trans woman, such as Blaire White, dressing and acting like a woman? The phrase "biological gender identity" seems to conflate the modern conception of sex (genitals, chromosomes to some extent, hormones) with the modern conception of gender (roles, presentation, identity) and I'm now confused.

Re: Why some researchers think I’m wrong about social media and mental illness

#338

Post by kmeisthax » Wed, Apr 19, 2023, 5:13 PM UTC

marttt wrote: post #331

throwaway894345 wrote: post #242

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean, there was anger at politicians, but it was mostly "all politicians are corrupt". I certainly don't remember people saying "I am angry" all the time. I wonder if this was a coastal thing (e.g., the 'Occupy' movement seemed angry in a way that I couldn't relate to having lived my whole life in the midwest) and social media amplified it and spread it across the country? I do recall online discourse being a lot a…

> I do recall online discourse being a lot angrier and less civil (not merely "more critical", but a lot more personal attacks, hateful generalizations, caricatures, etc). Tangentially related: I wonder how Usenet groups or 1990s/early 2000s mailing lists compare to today's social media in terms of toxicity. Seems like the "netiquette" mostly worked those days; then again, one can probably easily spot ridiculous trol…

Toxicity isn't the only factor. USENET[0] may have been nasty but that nastiness was also very public and untargeted. Social media adds the ability to be extremely targeted with your abuse in ways that are nearly invisible to those who aren't clued into it. You can weaponize it way easier than you can a message board.

[0] And, for the purpose of this discussion, imageboards and other forums with little moderation, such as 2channel, Futaba, 4chan, etc.

Re: Why some researchers think I’m wrong about social media and mental illness

#339

Post by msla » Wed, Apr 19, 2023, 5:14 PM UTC

peanutcrisis wrote: post #172

msla wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There has been a complete loss in any interest in meeting a middle ground There's no middle ground between wanting to kill someone and wanting to let them live in peace. If a person thinks someone is a born child molester (a "groomer" in the modern Newspeak) and that person thinks the punishment for child molestation is death (as is fashionable in Florida of late) there's no way they can meet that person in the mid…

A contra-narrative to your point is that there exist a minority of people who hold very specific and very dogmatic views about gender. These people are pushing their views through the education system (I do not know the extent of it, just that it exists), and seemingly without the consent of parents (i.e., social transitions without informing parents). While I deeply disagree and detest the use of the term "groomer",…

> A contra-narrative to your point is that there exist a minority of people who hold very specific and very dogmatic views about gender.

Yes. They're the ones who try to enforce their views at gunpoint.

> These people are pushing their views through the education system (I do not know the extent of it, just that it exists), and seemingly without the consent of parents (i.e., social transitions without informing parents).

You were going so well until the end, there. They don't enable social transition without parental consent, they insist upon genital inspections without parental consent. Looking at the genitals of pre-pubescent children isn't something which would interest me, but they seem quite keen on it. It isn't something I can condone, of course, and not something I can meet them halfway on.

> While I deeply disagree and detest the use of the term "groomer", the people who are doing so, are doing so in reaction to this dogma.

Insisting on access to the genitals of children is grooming behavior. Normalizing the idea that strangers get to poke around without consent is pure grooming. It's why I can't accept it.

Re: Why some researchers think I’m wrong about social media and mental illness

#340

Post by asdff » Wed, Apr 19, 2023, 5:15 PM UTC

1827162 wrote: post #94

I think it's the total visibility that's causing mental illness. There is no space where you can be with your friends, screw up, and not have it become known to everyone in your peer group. There's little space to make mistakes. No space to be yourself. You are under the watchful gaze of your friends, i.e. peer surveillance, nearly all of the time. Which induces stifling conformity. Everything's under constant scruti…

I don't think this is unique to social media. Try dressing different from the norm in the 1990s before people even had cellphones in class and you'd definitely end up ostracized. It would be even worse because there's no way to find people who might be different like you, unlike today where there are forums and other websites.