Facebook proven to negatively impact mental health • Hacker News Board

Re: Facebook proven to negatively impact mental health

#181

Post by oneplane » Thu, Sep 22, 2022, 8:48 PM UTC

jeff-davis wrote: post #164

I'm pleased to see the word "causation" reappear along with the word "science". But I'm disappointed to see the word "proven". It isn't proven, and there are a number of problems. One is that the hypothesis is never really tested, this is just more data analysis. I don't want to split hairs over the definition of "science" but if you don't have an experiment where you intervene in the real world and dispassionately r…

While it might not be a record of an experiment, it's a whole lot better in terms of data analysis than just someone's gut feeling. That last one was something I expected much more in the comments where people would just "well duh" this type of publication.

At the very least this data analysis shows something with a trace, instead of just throwing an idea out there and hoping someone builds a complete thesis around it and starts experimenting while everyone else is still guessing and having feelings but not getting anywhere concrete.

Re: Facebook proven to negatively impact mental health

#182

Post by PuppyTailWags » Thu, Sep 22, 2022, 8:49 PM UTC

deltarholamda wrote: post #178

PuppyTailWags wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Hey, thanks for correcting me. You're right that the issue was Limbaugh's radio program, not his TV. I apologize for getting my example wrong, but I think my overall point is still a valid one (that just because social media is more effective at spewing bad rhetoric doesn't mean bad rhetoric is ineffective in other media).

Re: Facebook proven to negatively impact mental health

#183

Post by oneplane » Thu, Sep 22, 2022, 8:50 PM UTC

wfbarks wrote: post #61

I took a long break (maybe 5 years or so) but I have recently started using both FB and Instagram and have been surprised at how positive my time has been on these platforms. On FB I have been finding interesting local groups and events (just moved to a new city) and on Instagram, I have been enjoying seeing updates from real friends. On the other hand I recently deleted Twitter from my phone. I love twitter for gett…

The issue with the meta products is that no matter how much you try to personally curate who you see stuff from, they will insert sponsored content you have no choice in and that can be real ads but also random posts.

Re: Facebook proven to negatively impact mental health

#184

Post by rconti » Thu, Sep 22, 2022, 8:51 PM UTC

giuliomagnifico wrote: post #2

> They found a statistically significant worsening in mental health symptoms, especially depression and anxiety, after the arrival of Facebook: 7% increase in number of students who reported having suffering, at least once during the preceding year, depression so severe that it was difficult for them to function 20% increase in number of students who reported anxiety disorders 2% increase in number of students expect…

I am suspicious of the methodology because of how quickly Facebook rolled out across most colleges/Universities. I want to say within a year. It feels unlikely that the data would be granular enough (and the survey given frequently enough at each University) to reach these sorts of conclusions.

Re: Facebook proven to negatively impact mental health

#185

Post by 2-718-281-828 » Thu, Sep 22, 2022, 8:52 PM UTC

Off Facebook for more than five years ... and still not mentally healthy. I feel cheated.

Re: Facebook proven to negatively impact mental health

#186

Post by jedberg » Thu, Sep 22, 2022, 8:54 PM UTC

Tainnor wrote: post #125

random314 wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I will take a stab. Mind you, I have not even clicked on the article, much less read it or know what the methodology is. Here goes ---- "The have used a correlational model, not a causal model. There are several confounding variables the paper doesn't consider, hence it is not proven from the evidence that Facebook has a negative impact "

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…

> but at a first glance, that's not an unreasonable approach, as it tries to isolate the variable "facebook yes/no".

I agree it's not unreasonable, but you have to account for the fact that back then, most of the colleges that had it were top tier/high stress/highly selective colleges. Facebook started at Harvard, then went to Yale and Princeton, and then on to basically most of the US News top 50.

Re: Facebook proven to negatively impact mental health

#187

Post by lcnPylGDnU4H9OF » Thu, Sep 22, 2022, 9:05 PM UTC

Tainnor wrote: post #174

lcnPylGDnU4H9OF wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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).

Fair points!

The comment I responded to was seeming to attribute those to OP's later comments, which would be unfair. The dismissal of the dismissal still comes across as low-effort and shallow.

Re: Facebook proven to negatively impact mental health

#188

Post by dylan604 » Thu, Sep 22, 2022, 9:06 PM UTC

smsm42 wrote: post #177

eimrine wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But he is not spending time on social platform.

And he can't wait to tell the Internet how proud he is about that.

Only in relation to a thread about how much time people are spending on the socials. It's part of the conversation. That's kind of how the work.

Re: Facebook proven to negatively impact mental health

#189

Post by MandieD » Thu, Sep 22, 2022, 9:08 PM UTC

otikik wrote: post #68

gergov wrote: post #47

Earlier 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…

> some sort of willful ignorance Not "some sort of willful ignorance". It just requires "ignorance". I think most of us know someone who thinks that reality TV is ... well, reality. "It says it in the name". > Show a kid a celebrity pushing something and they can tell it's fake Perhaps you have very bright kids. My kid will ask me to buy two of whatever that person is pushing. He's simply not equipped to handle marke…

Up to now, I have vigorously shielded my toddler from marketing - as far as he knows, the TV occasionally shows holiday church services and election results, and "his" laptop shows fairly non-violent excerpts from BBC animal documentaries and bird-watching videos (he's taken to asking to watch by making the slurping sounds the desert rain frog in his favorite video makes as it's eating termites, then exclaiming "froggy!").

I know he needs to be exposed to some marketing while I'm watching along to talk about it so he isn't completely defenseless against it later, but I don't think that time is quite yet. So far, I'm going with his being able to separate "real" from "pretend" as a minimum.

Re: Facebook proven to negatively impact mental health

#190

Post by therealdrag0 » Thu, Sep 22, 2022, 9:08 PM UTC

ranger47 wrote: post #93

Who needed a study? We've known this for years, and it was even speculated at the dawn of Friendster, MySpace, etc. Watching a society (the US, for example) slowly say "social media is bad" then continue to use it is like watching a stumbling drunk declare their ability to quit drinking anytime they want.

Even intuitive things should be studied. It’s valuable to know the scope and context and magnitude of impact. “X is bad” followed by confabulation, which is how many of these discussions go, is not helpful.