3 ms·

There is a robust debate about whether or not facebook provides negative value to its users. In my opinion, it's charitable to say that the question of whether

There is a robust debate about whether or not facebook provides negative value to its users. In my opinion, it's charitable to say that the question of whether Facebook harms its users is open to debate. There seems to be a clear correlation between use of facebook and negative mental health outcomes. The fact that people use a product is absolutely not evidence that it provides value to its consumers, especially when addiction is involved. Whatever "value" someone got out of cigarettes when they first started smoking, most addicts wouldn't say they smoke because they get something out of it beyond the assuaging of cravings.

gfodor 8y ago
I like this analogy and I'll steal it if you don't mind. (Assuming that customer value is the same as product use, with cigarettes being a brain dead obvious counterexample.)
citrablue 8y ago
This assumes that FB is harmful to everyone, instead of a subset of people. I don't think that's very well proven. The mental health studies also have a bit of a correlation issue, similar to drug use. I think sugar is a more apt analogy than smoking. Facebook, like sugars, provides a source of a required human input. (Calories/human connection). Overdone, both are harmful. Tobacco is a much more charged analogy, and is more extreme in terms of positive/negative balance. I think it reveals more about the biases of the person making the statement than it does about social media.
- zestyping 8y ago
  To refine your analogy, Facebook is like someone whose business plan is "Hey, there's this nutrient called sugar that everyone eats. Great! Let's put heroin in it and give it to kids."
- ForrestN 8y ago
  The degree of harm is correlated with the degree of use, just like cigarettes. If you smoke a handful of cigarettes a year, it probably won't affect you much at all. But if you use cigarettes multiple times a day for years, you'll do real harm to yourself. That's exactly true of Facebook. Yes, if you occasionally check in and are diligent about how you use facebook, you might escape harm. But unlike sugar, this slight-of-hand language they use of "human connection" doesn't prove that any facebook use is beneficial. Sure, candy technically has calories. But the fact that human beings need calories isn't a good argument for eating candy. You can also get calories from healthy foods, and you can get "human connection" from, you know, talking to people, or sending text messages, or reading reputable news sources. Not coincidentally, the idea of a "social connection" was and is also a big part of apologizing for smoking as a habit.
  - throwawaymath 8y ago
    > The degree of harm is correlated with the degree of use, just like cigarettes. If you smoke a handful of cigarettes a year, it probably won't affect you much at all. But if you use cigarettes multiple times a day for years, you'll do real harm to yourself. That's exactly true of Facebook. That's also true of just about anything humans can consume. For example, sugar.

gfodor 8y ago

I like this analogy and I'll steal it if you don't mind. (Assuming that customer value is the same as product use, with cigarettes being a brain dead obvious counterexample.)

citrablue 8y ago

This assumes that FB is harmful to everyone, instead of a subset of people. I don't think that's very well proven. The mental health studies also have a bit of a correlation issue, similar to drug use. I think sugar is a more apt analogy than smoking. Facebook, like sugars, provides a source of a required human input. (Calories/human connection). Overdone, both are harmful. Tobacco is a much more charged analogy, and is more extreme in terms of positive/negative balance. I think it reveals more about the biases of the person making the statement than it does about social media.

zestyping 8y ago
To refine your analogy, Facebook is like someone whose business plan is "Hey, there's this nutrient called sugar that everyone eats. Great! Let's put heroin in it and give it to kids."
ForrestN 8y ago
The degree of harm is correlated with the degree of use, just like cigarettes. If you smoke a handful of cigarettes a year, it probably won't affect you much at all. But if you use cigarettes multiple times a day for years, you'll do real harm to yourself. That's exactly true of Facebook. Yes, if you occasionally check in and are diligent about how you use facebook, you might escape harm. But unlike sugar, this slight-of-hand language they use of "human connection" doesn't prove that any facebook use is beneficial. Sure, candy technically has calories. But the fact that human beings need calories isn't a good argument for eating candy. You can also get calories from healthy foods, and you can get "human connection" from, you know, talking to people, or sending text messages, or reading reputable news sources. Not coincidentally, the idea of a "social connection" was and is also a big part of apologizing for smoking as a habit.
- throwawaymath 8y ago
  > The degree of harm is correlated with the degree of use, just like cigarettes. If you smoke a handful of cigarettes a year, it probably won't affect you much at all. But if you use cigarettes multiple times a day for years, you'll do real harm to yourself. That's exactly true of Facebook. That's also true of just about anything humans can consume. For example, sugar.