8 ms·

>“Studies have actually proven that the more connected we are, the happier we are, and the healthier we are,” [Zuckerberg] said this summer at Facebook’s first

by jasode 9y ago

>“Studies have actually proven that the more connected we are, the happier we are, and the healthier we are,” [Zuckerberg] said this summer at Facebook’s first ever communities summit in Chicago, where he announced a new, idealistic mission statement: “To give people the power to build community and bring the world closer together.” If that's what MZ believes, he's being selective in the studies he's reading. It's frightening that we have a very smart guy with a fatally flawed anthropological view of Facebook's effect. Mass media technologies like Facebook/tv/radio/newspapers actually have the opposite effect: They increase tribalism and polarization. Yes, social networks bring some people together... like distant relatives sharing more photos than the Kodak film days. Or a group that shares a hobby like anonymous unrelated guitar players talking about gear on a music forum. However, asking for communication platforms to bridge the gap of Democrats vs Republicans or Christians vs Muslims or Pro-life vs Pro-choice doesn't work. What really happens is those groups use the technology to dig in their heels even further and double-down on their entrenched positions. Tribalism amplified to the max.

yogthos 9y ago
There are also plenty of studies showing that Facebook makes people depressed https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/what-mentally-strong-people-dont-do/201603/science-explains-how-facebook-makes-you-sad https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/what-mentally-strong-pe... People tend to predominantly post things that make them look good, and reading that makes people feel like their own lives aren't as great as those of their friends and acquaintances.
- mtgx 9y ago
  That's what Facebook's own studies have shown, too. You'd think Zuckerberg would read his company's own studies. Facebook is not making people feel happy. It's making them sad and envious of their friends.
  - dvfjsdhgfv 9y ago
    Of course he knows this very well. But why should he talk about it? There's nothing he can do about it anyway.
    - taway_1212 9y ago
      There's plenty he can do - for example, place a warning message/banner on the website. Of course, he'd only do that if he cared about Facebook users.
      - dvfjsdhgfv 9y ago
        And how would that change anything? And wouldn't this be an action against the interest of the company? I don't see how anything can be done at this point, he has no choice but continue this vicious circle. Also, I think in his perception the benefits outweigh the damage. Otherwise how could he look at himself in the mirror?
        tareqak 9y ago
        The benefits for who? him? Facebook's investors? influencers and celebrities? or Facebook's users. TL;DR - Facebook is a "sausage factory", and only a few people know what actually goes on in there. Our collective human history can be used to justify pretty much anything. The chapter that is relevant to my point is that humans are very good at externalizing and abstracting the product for the sake of the customer. The thing with Facebook is that the product and the customer is the same: [two different sets of] people. To your question, "Otherwise how could he look at himself in the mirror?": What do you use a mirror for that cannot be replaced or overcome with sufficient wealth? === The Long; Do Read Even at the risk of drawing an incomplete, yet horrific analogy, I'll do so anyway. Facebook's users are product correct? Another product consumed by many people is meat. Most meat is prepared in slaughterhouses from animals bred and grown in factory farms for slaughter. There are a lot of procedures that are followed to make the extraction and sale of meat as economically profitable as possible. I don't know of all of them, but here are a few that I do know of 1) Feeding animals hormones to make them grow faster: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bovine_somatotropin https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bovine_somatotropin 2) Feeding animals antibiotics to prevent outbreaks of disease within a herd: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bovine_somatotropin https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bovine_somatotropin 3) Packing animals extremely close together (closer than they would be if they were free to wander unimpeded), so that they are exposed to their own waste in high concentrations and over a prolonged duration: https://www.aspca.org/animal-cruelty/farm-animal-welfare/animals-factory-farms https://www.aspca.org/animal-cruelty/farm-animal-welfare/ani... . A whole lot from one page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intensive_animal_farming https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intensive_animal_farming 4) The major milestone in 20th century poultry production was the discovery of vitamin D, which made it possible to keep chickens in confinement year-round. 5) Meat-type chickens currently grow to market weight in six to seven weeks, whereas only fifty years ago it took three times as long.[Havenstein, G.B., P.R. Ferket, and M.A. Qureshi, 2003a. Growth, livability, and feed conversion of 1957 versus 2001 broilers when fed representative 1957 and 2001 broiler diets. Poult. Sci. 82:1500–1508] This is due to genetic selection and nutritional modifications (but not the use of growth hormones, which are illegal for use in poultry in the US and many other countries). 6) On average, a chicken lays one egg a day, but not on every day of the year. This varies with the breed and time of year. In 1900, average egg production was 83 eggs per hen per year. In 2000, it was well over 300. 7) The use of sow stalls (gestation crates) has resulted in lower production costs, however, this practice has led to more significant animal welfare concerns. Many of the world’s largest producers of pigs (U.S. and Canada) use sow stalls, but some nations (e.g. the UK) and some US States (e.g. Florida and Arizona) have banned them. 8) Piglets often receive range of treatments including castration, tail docking to reduce tail biting, teeth clipped (to reduce injuring their mother's nipples and prevent later tusk growth) and their ears notched to assist identification. Treatments are usually made without pain killers. Weak runts may be slain shortly after birth. 9) Many routine husbandry practices involve ear tagging, dehorning, loading, medical operations, vaccinations and hoof care, as well as training for agricultural shows and preparations. There are also some cultural differences in working with cattle - the cattle husbandry of Fulani men rests on behavioural techniques, whereas in Europe cattle are controlled primarily by physical means like fences.[Lott, Dale F.; Hart, Benjamin L. (October 1979). "Applied ethology in a nomadic cattle culture". Applied Animal Ethology. Elsevier B.V. 5 (4): 309–319. doi:10.1016/0304-3762(79)90102-0.] 10) Farmed fish are kept in concentrations never seen in the wild, e.g. 50,000 fish in a 2-acre (8,100 m2) area,["Fuss over Farming Fish, Alaska Science Forum". Retrieved September 6, 2015.] with each fish occupying less room than the average bathtub. This can cause several forms of pollution. Packed tightly, fish rub against each other and the sides of their cages, damaging their fins and tails and becoming sickened with various diseases and infections.[This also causes stress."Facts about Fish and Fish Farming", Advocates for Animals.] 11) Technological advances have led to growing shrimp at ever higher densities, and broodstock is shipped worldwide. Virtually all farmed shrimp are penaeids (i.e., of the family Penaeidae), and just two species of shrimp—the Penaeus vannamei (Pacific white shrimp) and the Penaeus monodon (giant tiger prawn)—account for roughly 80% of all farmed shrimp. These industrial monocultures are very susceptible to diseases, which have caused several regional wipe-outs of farm shrimp populations. Increasing ecological problems, repeated disease outbreaks, and pressure and criticism from both NGOs and consumer countries led to changes in the industry in the late 1990s and generally stronger regulation by governments. A few quotes from https://www.theguardian.com/books/2015/sep/25/industrial-farming-one-worst-crimes-history-ethical-question https://www.theguardian.com/books/2015/sep/25/industrial-far... (I liked this article - you should read it if you have an interest in the topic) 12) Broiler chickens, which are reared specifically for their meat, often suffer lameness due to overcrowding. [https://www.theguardian.com/books/2015/sep/25/industrial-farming-one-worst-crimes-history-ethical-question#img-2 https://www.theguardian.com/books/2015/sep/25/industrial-far...] 13) What happens when farmers now take a young calf, separate her from her mother, put her in a tiny cage, vaccinate her against various diseases, provide her with food and water, and then, when she is old enough, artificially inseminate her with bull sperm? From an objective perspective, this calf no longer needs either maternal bonding or playmates in order to survive and reproduce. All her needs are being taken care of by her human masters. But from a subjective perspective, the calf still feels a strong urge to bond with her mother and to play with other calves. If these urges are not fulfilled, the calf suffers greatly. This is the basic lesson of evolutionary psychology: a need shaped thousands of generations ago continues to be felt subjectively even if it is no longer necessary for survival and reproduction in the present. Tragically, the agricultural revolution gave humans the power to ensure the survival and reproduction of domesticated animals while ignoring their subjective needs. In consequence, domesticated animals are collectively the most successful animals in the world, and at the same time they are individually the most miserable animals that have ever existed. 14) The scientific study of animals has played a dismal role in this tragedy. The scientific community has used its growing knowledge of animals mainly to manipulate their lives more efficiently in the service of human industry. Yet this same knowledge has demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt that farm animals are sentient beings, with intricate social relations and sophisticated psychological patterns. They may not be as intelligent as us, but they certainly know pain, fear and loneliness. They too can suffer, and they too can be happy. Edit: Formatting
  - tpkj 9y ago
    "A New, More Rigorous Study Confirms: The More You Use Facebook, the Worse You Feel" https://hbr.org/2017/04/a-new-more-rigorous-study-confirms-the-more-you-use-facebook-the-worse-you-feel https://hbr.org/2017/04/a-new-more-rigorous-study-confirms-t...
tryingagainbro 9y ago
MZ even if he knows that is a complete lie, he may sleep very well at night. End justifies the means, ala Bill Gates, type of reasoning. Will make it up to the world /God when I use the FB stock to do good.
tomjen3 9y ago
Why would I want to get closer to people I consider evil? Why would I listen to people whose argument I have already found flaws in? Until you can answer those questions, society will keep drifting. Dan Carlin had a good argument which essentially boiled down to we are all in this together, but the obvious counter example to that is to make the walls higher and eventually to make the other group submit.
- retailbuyout 9y ago
  > eventually to make the other group submit. Does this ever really happen without complete extermination? I suspect this route is an illusion.
bluntfang 9y ago
It reminds me of the cigarette industry funding studies to find questions for the answer that cigarettes are safe and healthy.
ThomPete 9y ago
I am unconvinced by this line of reasoning. From my perspective facebooks net effect is positive compared to before because it exposes people to different opinions way more than before where it was litterally only someones closest friends, neighbours, family and the news that you had as sources. Trump is an anamoly and his affect on the tribalism and polarization can't be taken for the norm yet I suspect that a lot of the reason there seems to be indication of increased tribalism is because of him not Facebook. There are plenty problems with facebook but from my perspective it's better than it's bad.
- AndrewKemendo 9y ago
  The point is that is exactly the opposite of what it does. It shows you more of the stuff you like and ends up creating filter bubbles. This aspect of FB is a big part of what people point to when looking at it's impact on the election and polarization of the US.
  - ThomPete 9y ago
    This is exactly what I find unconvincing. If it creates a filter bubble how can it then increase tribalism and polarization?
    - mercer 9y ago
      I'm honestly confused by this comment. Being stuck in a filter bubble and increased tribalism/polarization seem like two things that rather obviously correlate. I don't really understand how that's not obvious.
      - ThomPete 9y ago
        Where does this tribalism and polarization take place if not online? Do you have any evidence of changed patterns in "real life" with that regard? So if Facebook keeps people in bubbles so they never get exposed to other views how do you know they are more polarized if not using social media.
    - 9y ago
tzakrajs 9y ago
Mark has based his entire adult life on Facebook, are you surprised that he would be resistant to people challenging his life's work?
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
johndoe489 9y ago
I'm sure he believes his own jibbi jabba. This is what happens when you have to rationalize everything you do for money, on a consistent basis. There is a high price to pay for that, and he must be dissociated from himself at some level. As a society it is something we don't recognize as such.... at least not yet. It is a violence that we all do to ourselves as a collective. Partly I think because of an economic system that is essentially based on necessity and survival. This economic system, is a reflection of us, so it's a catch 22 situation whereby living in fear makes us dissociate, and while dissociated we act from the "map" not the actual reality... so we keep spinning the wheels of these comanies as well as the old mindsets.
- scirocco 9y ago
  Yep. Any CEO leading in a shrinking market would still say there lies "a great opportunity ahead"

by jasode 9y ago

yogthos 9y ago

There are also plenty of studies showing that Facebook makes people depressed https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/what-mentally-strong-people-dont-do/201603/science-explains-how-facebook-makes-you-sad https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/what-mentally-strong-pe... People tend to predominantly post things that make them look good, and reading that makes people feel like their own lives aren't as great as those of their friends and acquaintances.

mtgx 9y ago
That's what Facebook's own studies have shown, too. You'd think Zuckerberg would read his company's own studies. Facebook is not making people feel happy. It's making them sad and envious of their friends.
- dvfjsdhgfv 9y ago
  Of course he knows this very well. But why should he talk about it? There's nothing he can do about it anyway.
  - taway_1212 9y ago
    There's plenty he can do - for example, place a warning message/banner on the website. Of course, he'd only do that if he cared about Facebook users.
    - dvfjsdhgfv 9y ago
      And how would that change anything? And wouldn't this be an action against the interest of the company? I don't see how anything can be done at this point, he has no choice but continue this vicious circle. Also, I think in his perception the benefits outweigh the damage. Otherwise how could he look at himself in the mirror?
      - tareqak 9y ago
        The benefits for who? him? Facebook's investors? influencers and celebrities? or Facebook's users. TL;DR - Facebook is a "sausage factory", and only a few people know what actually goes on in there. Our collective human history can be used to justify pretty much anything. The chapter that is relevant to my point is that humans are very good at externalizing and abstracting the product for the sake of the customer. The thing with Facebook is that the product and the customer is the same: [two different sets of] people. To your question, "Otherwise how could he look at himself in the mirror?": What do you use a mirror for that cannot be replaced or overcome with sufficient wealth? === The Long; Do Read Even at the risk of drawing an incomplete, yet horrific analogy, I'll do so anyway. Facebook's users are product correct? Another product consumed by many people is meat. Most meat is prepared in slaughterhouses from animals bred and grown in factory farms for slaughter. There are a lot of procedures that are followed to make the extraction and sale of meat as economically profitable as possible. I don't know of all of them, but here are a few that I do know of 1) Feeding animals hormones to make them grow faster: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bovine_somatotropin https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bovine_somatotropin 2) Feeding animals antibiotics to prevent outbreaks of disease within a herd: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bovine_somatotropin https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bovine_somatotropin 3) Packing animals extremely close together (closer than they would be if they were free to wander unimpeded), so that they are exposed to their own waste in high concentrations and over a prolonged duration: https://www.aspca.org/animal-cruelty/farm-animal-welfare/animals-factory-farms https://www.aspca.org/animal-cruelty/farm-animal-welfare/ani... . A whole lot from one page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intensive_animal_farming https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intensive_animal_farming 4) The major milestone in 20th century poultry production was the discovery of vitamin D, which made it possible to keep chickens in confinement year-round. 5) Meat-type chickens currently grow to market weight in six to seven weeks, whereas only fifty years ago it took three times as long.[Havenstein, G.B., P.R. Ferket, and M.A. Qureshi, 2003a. Growth, livability, and feed conversion of 1957 versus 2001 broilers when fed representative 1957 and 2001 broiler diets. Poult. Sci. 82:1500–1508] This is due to genetic selection and nutritional modifications (but not the use of growth hormones, which are illegal for use in poultry in the US and many other countries). 6) On average, a chicken lays one egg a day, but not on every day of the year. This varies with the breed and time of year. In 1900, average egg production was 83 eggs per hen per year. In 2000, it was well over 300. 7) The use of sow stalls (gestation crates) has resulted in lower production costs, however, this practice has led to more significant animal welfare concerns. Many of the world’s largest producers of pigs (U.S. and Canada) use sow stalls, but some nations (e.g. the UK) and some US States (e.g. Florida and Arizona) have banned them. 8) Piglets often receive range of treatments including castration, tail docking to reduce tail biting, teeth clipped (to reduce injuring their mother's nipples and prevent later tusk growth) and their ears notched to assist identification. Treatments are usually made without pain killers. Weak runts may be slain shortly after birth. 9) Many routine husbandry practices involve ear tagging, dehorning, loading, medical operations, vaccinations and hoof care, as well as training for agricultural shows and preparations. There are also some cultural differences in working with cattle - the cattle husbandry of Fulani men rests on behavioural techniques, whereas in Europe cattle are controlled primarily by physical means like fences.[Lott, Dale F.; Hart, Benjamin L. (October 1979). "Applied ethology in a nomadic cattle culture". Applied Animal Ethology. Elsevier B.V. 5 (4): 309–319. doi:10.1016/0304-3762(79)90102-0.] 10) Farmed fish are kept in concentrations never seen in the wild, e.g. 50,000 fish in a 2-acre (8,100 m2) area,["Fuss over Farming Fish, Alaska Science Forum". Retrieved September 6, 2015.] with each fish occupying less room than the average bathtub. This can cause several forms of pollution. Packed tightly, fish rub against each other and the sides of their cages, damaging their fins and tails and becoming sickened with various diseases and infections.[This also causes stress."Facts about Fish and Fish Farming", Advocates for Animals.] 11) Technological advances have led to growing shrimp at ever higher densities, and broodstock is shipped worldwide. Virtually all farmed shrimp are penaeids (i.e., of the family Penaeidae), and just two species of shrimp—the Penaeus vannamei (Pacific white shrimp) and the Penaeus monodon (giant tiger prawn)—account for roughly 80% of all farmed shrimp. These industrial monocultures are very susceptible to diseases, which have caused several regional wipe-outs of farm shrimp populations. Increasing ecological problems, repeated disease outbreaks, and pressure and criticism from both NGOs and consumer countries led to changes in the industry in the late 1990s and generally stronger regulation by governments. A few quotes from https://www.theguardian.com/books/2015/sep/25/industrial-farming-one-worst-crimes-history-ethical-question https://www.theguardian.com/books/2015/sep/25/industrial-far... (I liked this article - you should read it if you have an interest in the topic) 12) Broiler chickens, which are reared specifically for their meat, often suffer lameness due to overcrowding. [https://www.theguardian.com/books/2015/sep/25/industrial-farming-one-worst-crimes-history-ethical-question#img-2 https://www.theguardian.com/books/2015/sep/25/industrial-far...] 13) What happens when farmers now take a young calf, separate her from her mother, put her in a tiny cage, vaccinate her against various diseases, provide her with food and water, and then, when she is old enough, artificially inseminate her with bull sperm? From an objective perspective, this calf no longer needs either maternal bonding or playmates in order to survive and reproduce. All her needs are being taken care of by her human masters. But from a subjective perspective, the calf still feels a strong urge to bond with her mother and to play with other calves. If these urges are not fulfilled, the calf suffers greatly. This is the basic lesson of evolutionary psychology: a need shaped thousands of generations ago continues to be felt subjectively even if it is no longer necessary for survival and reproduction in the present. Tragically, the agricultural revolution gave humans the power to ensure the survival and reproduction of domesticated animals while ignoring their subjective needs. In consequence, domesticated animals are collectively the most successful animals in the world, and at the same time they are individually the most miserable animals that have ever existed. 14) The scientific study of animals has played a dismal role in this tragedy. The scientific community has used its growing knowledge of animals mainly to manipulate their lives more efficiently in the service of human industry. Yet this same knowledge has demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt that farm animals are sentient beings, with intricate social relations and sophisticated psychological patterns. They may not be as intelligent as us, but they certainly know pain, fear and loneliness. They too can suffer, and they too can be happy. Edit: Formatting
- tpkj 9y ago
  "A New, More Rigorous Study Confirms: The More You Use Facebook, the Worse You Feel" https://hbr.org/2017/04/a-new-more-rigorous-study-confirms-the-more-you-use-facebook-the-worse-you-feel https://hbr.org/2017/04/a-new-more-rigorous-study-confirms-t...

tryingagainbro 9y ago

MZ even if he knows that is a complete lie, he may sleep very well at night. End justifies the means, ala Bill Gates, type of reasoning. Will make it up to the world /God when I use the FB stock to do good.

tomjen3 9y ago

Why would I want to get closer to people I consider evil? Why would I listen to people whose argument I have already found flaws in? Until you can answer those questions, society will keep drifting. Dan Carlin had a good argument which essentially boiled down to we are all in this together, but the obvious counter example to that is to make the walls higher and eventually to make the other group submit.

retailbuyout 9y ago
> eventually to make the other group submit. Does this ever really happen without complete extermination? I suspect this route is an illusion.

bluntfang 9y ago

It reminds me of the cigarette industry funding studies to find questions for the answer that cigarettes are safe and healthy.

ThomPete 9y ago

I am unconvinced by this line of reasoning. From my perspective facebooks net effect is positive compared to before because it exposes people to different opinions way more than before where it was litterally only someones closest friends, neighbours, family and the news that you had as sources. Trump is an anamoly and his affect on the tribalism and polarization can't be taken for the norm yet I suspect that a lot of the reason there seems to be indication of increased tribalism is because of him not Facebook. There are plenty problems with facebook but from my perspective it's better than it's bad.

AndrewKemendo 9y ago
The point is that is exactly the opposite of what it does. It shows you more of the stuff you like and ends up creating filter bubbles. This aspect of FB is a big part of what people point to when looking at it's impact on the election and polarization of the US.
- ThomPete 9y ago
  This is exactly what I find unconvincing. If it creates a filter bubble how can it then increase tribalism and polarization?
  - mercer 9y ago
    I'm honestly confused by this comment. Being stuck in a filter bubble and increased tribalism/polarization seem like two things that rather obviously correlate. I don't really understand how that's not obvious.
    - ThomPete 9y ago
      Where does this tribalism and polarization take place if not online? Do you have any evidence of changed patterns in "real life" with that regard? So if Facebook keeps people in bubbles so they never get exposed to other views how do you know they are more polarized if not using social media.
  - 9y ago

tzakrajs 9y ago

Mark has based his entire adult life on Facebook, are you surprised that he would be resistant to people challenging his life's work?

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]

johndoe489 9y ago

I'm sure he believes his own jibbi jabba. This is what happens when you have to rationalize everything you do for money, on a consistent basis. There is a high price to pay for that, and he must be dissociated from himself at some level. As a society it is something we don't recognize as such.... at least not yet. It is a violence that we all do to ourselves as a collective. Partly I think because of an economic system that is essentially based on necessity and survival. This economic system, is a reflection of us, so it's a catch 22 situation whereby living in fear makes us dissociate, and while dissociated we act from the "map" not the actual reality... so we keep spinning the wheels of these comanies as well as the old mindsets.

scirocco 9y ago
Yep. Any CEO leading in a shrinking market would still say there lies "a great opportunity ahead"