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

The case against social media is stronger than you think

arachnemag.substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

271–280 of 304 posts

Re: The case against social media is stronger than you think

#271

Post by Lerc »

procaryote wrote: post #176
Lerc wrote: post #11

Part of me thinks that if the case against social media was stronger, it would not be being litigated on substack. A lot of things suck right now. Social media definitely give us the ability to see that. Using your personal ideology to link correlations is not the same thing as finding causation. There will be undoubtedly be some damaging aspects of social media, simply because it is large and complex. It would be hi…

> Part of me thinks that if the case against social media was stronger, it would not be being litigated on substack. It's litigated all over and has been for a decade. Australia for example has set an age limit of 16 to have social media. France 15. Schools or countries are trying various phone bans. There's research into it. There are whistleblowers telling about Facebook's own research they've suppressed as it woul…

I am aware that laws have been passed on a wide range of issues against expert advice. Whether it be protecting the right to assault children, punishing addicts instead of preventing harm, or cutting children off from their most used method of first contact with mental health-care

Since you bring up the Australian law as an example I shall check the expert opinion on that.

For the second time in a week, I find myself in the peculiar position of seeing our research misinterpreted and used to support specific (and ill-advised) policy - this time by the Australian government to justify a blanket social media ban for those under 16.

https://www.linkedin.com/posts/akprzybylski_the-communicatio...

This open-letter, signed by over 140 Australian academics, international experts, and civil society organisations, addresses the proposal to ‘ban’ children from social media until the age of 16. They argue that a ‘ban’ is too blunt an instrument to address risks effectively and that any restrictions must be designed with care.

https://apo.org.au/node/328608

https://ccyp.wa.gov.au/news/anzccga-joint-statement-on-the-s...

https://humanrights.gov.au/about/news/proposed-social-media-...

Re: The case against social media is stronger than you think

#272

Post by Lerc »

procaryote wrote: post #193
pembrook wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You’re strengthening OP’s point instead of undermining it. The “some governments banned it for kids” argument is an appeal to authority, a logical fallacy. The actions of tech-reactionist leftist governments absolutely do not constitute sound science or evidence in this matter. And if you’re claiming the French government only makes government policy based on sound data, I will point you to their currently unraveling…

Responding to the point "it's [only] litigated on substack", things like government bans are relevant counter-examples The bans might be unfounded or well founded, you might agree with them or not, but clearly the idea that social media might be bad has spread beyond substack

At no point did I have your inserted [only] in my mind when I wrote that.

I certainly do think the idea that social media might be bad has spread far and wide. What I would like to see is experts in the field reaching a consensus on to what extent that idea is true, and what should be done about it.

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-024-00902-2#ref-CR6

It should be noted a lot of ideas have spread in recent years. We would do well to not believe all of them, no matter how comforting it is to externalize blame.

Re: The case against social media is stronger than you think

#273

Post by MangoToupe »

BobbyTables2 wrote: post #245
MangoToupe wrote: post #244

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Have we? I don't recall that option ever being on the ballot in the US.

Well, one party’s stated solution for high oil imports was not to reduce consumption but rather “drill baby, drill!” Inefficient regulation also incentivizes car companies to make larger less efficient vehicles because they can’t make the smaller ones efficient enough. And the public has no problem buying enormous vehicles… (Doesn’t everyone need an off road extended cab 4x4 truck for commuting to the office?) Frankl…

This is not a serious conversation. One party pays lip service while simultaneously trying to appease people who want lower gas prices by approving more drilling and pumping, seemingly assuming we can somehow entrepreneurship our way out of the pit we're digging ourselves. The other side actively wants to drive us off a cliff. No candidate for president in either party has ever offered even a serious evaluation about the threat global warming poses our way of life.

Re: The case against social media is stronger than you think

#274

Post by estimator7292 »

CM30 wrote: post #254
narag wrote: post #237

If you're a politician, you need people to vote for you. "Your" people will. Try not to alienate too much others so you can fish moderates and get to 50%. If you're an "influencer" you need engagement. You can live off a 10% easily. And you need retention. So keep the message heated.

Hmm, I'm not sure the former holds true anymore. We're seeing societies getting far more polarised with some extreme rhetoric and and proposals coming from political parties, especially in places like the US and Western Europe. Kinda makes me wonder if politicians and political parties are fishing for engagement and focusing on the most extreme parts of their supporter base too.

> Kinda makes me wonder if politicians and political parties are fishing for engagement and focusing on the most extreme parts of their supporter base too.

Yes, that's been the explicitly stated goal for the last decade or two. Like, no one is even attempting to hide it.

Re: The case against social media is stronger than you think

#275

Post by pseudalopex »

synecdoche wrote: post #198
foxglacier wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I live in a society as toxic as that. It's New Zealand. One of the minor parties currently in government aims to undo systemic racism. However, the popular opinion is that they are the racists because of that. I don't dare tell people that I voted for them because I'll be judged as a racist by some of my family members and loose friends. If I say it on the local internet groups, others will be hostile to me for it. A…

I understand this view is unpopular, but nevertheless. For something to be systematic there needs to be some set of rules governing it. I have yet to see any evidence of discriminatory rules as part of any western company or government policy, except for affirmative action and equivalent policies which do have such rule sets, where some group is prioritised to the detriment of other.

Systemic and systematic are different words.

Re: The case against social media is stronger than you think

#277

Post by lanfeust6 »

delis-thumbs-7e wrote: post #262
lanfeust6 wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're on social media right now. Probably you could better qualify what it is you think is a problem.

Are we? In a sense yes that the content is usee-generated and stranger are discussing the content, but is any newsfeed with a comment-section or a hobbyist forum social media? Can I monetise my contributions here, advertise products, sell my karma-points or create networks of like-minded individuals here? Is there any point for me to try to turn my personality into a brand or try to ragebait you to interact with me b…

> In a sense yes

By definition, yes.

> is any newsfeed with a comment-section or a hobbyist forum social media?

Some are just larger and more centralized than others.

> Can I monetise my contributions here, advertise products, sell my karma-points or create networks of like-minded individuals here?

"Show HN" basically is that. And yes you can create connections here. I don't think I need to go on.

Re: The case against social media is stronger than you think

#278

Post by nerdsniper »

MangoToupe wrote: post #273
BobbyTables2 wrote: post #245

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, one party’s stated solution for high oil imports was not to reduce consumption but rather “drill baby, drill!” Inefficient regulation also incentivizes car companies to make larger less efficient vehicles because they can’t make the smaller ones efficient enough. And the public has no problem buying enormous vehicles… (Doesn’t everyone need an off road extended cab 4x4 truck for commuting to the office?) Frankl…

This is not a serious conversation. One party pays lip service while simultaneously trying to appease people who want lower gas prices by approving more drilling and pumping, seemingly assuming we can somehow entrepreneurship our way out of the pit we're digging ourselves. The other side actively wants to drive us off a cliff. No candidate for president in either party has ever offered even a serious evaluation about…

Not in the last 25 years anyways. Al Gore perhaps.

Re: The case against social media is stronger than you think

#279

Post by genrilz »

TheOtherHobbes wrote: post #204
Lerc wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I did not consider it a glib dismissal, and I would not consider traditional media an appropriate avenue to litigate this either. Trial by media is a term used to describe something that generally think shouldn't occur. The appropriate place to find out what is and isn't true is research. Do research, write papers, discuss results, resolve contradictions in findings, reach consensus. The media should not be deciding…

There's plenty of research. Plenty. None of it is positive. Summaries with links here. https://socialmediavictims.org/effects-of-social-media/ It's really not hard to confirm this. The problem isn't that "building political momentum is more important than accuracy", it's that social media is a huge global industry that pumps out psychological, emotional, and political pollution. And like all major polluters, it has a…

There is plenty of research on social media outcomes. I've looked through some of it before by just searching semanticscholar.org, and the general consensus is that it has both positive and negative effects.

I don't want to have to do a literature review again, and sharing papers is hard because they are often paywalled unless you are associated with a university or are willing to pirate them.

Luckily, The American Psychological Association [0] has shared this nice health advisory [1] which goes into detail. The APA has stewarded psychology research and communicated it to the public in the US for a long time. They have a good track record.

[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Psychological_Associa...

[1]: https://www.apa.org/topics/social-media-internet/health-advi...

Re: The case against social media is stronger than you think

#280

Post by m3047 »

CM30 wrote: post #254
narag wrote: post #237

If you're a politician, you need people to vote for you. "Your" people will. Try not to alienate too much others so you can fish moderates and get to 50%. If you're an "influencer" you need engagement. You can live off a 10% easily. And you need retention. So keep the message heated.

Hmm, I'm not sure the former holds true anymore. We're seeing societies getting far more polarised with some extreme rhetoric and and proposals coming from political parties, especially in places like the US and Western Europe. Kinda makes me wonder if politicians and political parties are fishing for engagement and focusing on the most extreme parts of their supporter base too.

A lot of them are just moneymaking machines, they don't really want community engagement. This is demonstrated in their approaches to community organizing / engagement. I directly witnessed this as a boardmember of an organization ostensibly representing over 100,000 voters:

1) The "90%-ers" view of the suggestion that they identify and court their supporters from (for them) the "40%-er" constituencies because they would be able to sway other 40%-ers due to the "liking" "weapon of influence" (Cialdini): this was mostly treated like a suggestion that they lick dog vomit.

2) Community / consensus building: what issues should we focus on? This was done by dividing participants up by some feature and then having those subgroups come up with maybe half a dozen concerns each. (Something is supposed to happen here before the next step.) Then those concerns were listed on a board and the concern(s) which were reflected across the most subgroups were selected to focus on. The missing piece, which the organizers absolutely knew about: the caucus! What goes wrong without it is that concerns about pedestrian safety, speeding, children walking to school, people getting to bus stops, etc. all get listed differently by the subgroups and... awwww, too bad, you were the only group which cared about children walking to schools... but every group cares about saving the whales (no offense to the whales)! But no whales live here, so what are we to do?

Post reply on HN