ditched the Zuck long ago. failed service
Facebook proven to negatively impact mental health
171–180 of 263 posts
Re: Facebook proven to negatively impact mental health
#172Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Not misleading, emblematic. Facebook's utilization has plummeted.
I thought you originally meant that your friends were frequent posters.
Re: Facebook proven to negatively impact mental health
#173Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
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 per…
> 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.
Re: Facebook proven to negatively impact mental health
#174Earlier quoted context omitted.
So it is a low-effort shallow dismissal then?
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!)
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).
Re: Facebook proven to negatively impact mental health
#175I 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
Re: Facebook proven to negatively impact mental health
#176I 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.
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?
Re: Facebook proven to negatively impact mental health
#177Re: Facebook proven to negatively impact mental health
#178Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
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…
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.
Re: Facebook proven to negatively impact mental health
#179I'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.
You could test this by looking at “new” instead of “top”.
Re: Facebook proven to negatively impact mental health
#180Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
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…
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).