4 ms·

> and a large portion are more than happy to spout things they would NEVER say in real life This is pretty much an internet problem, not a Facebook problem. Th

> and a large portion are more than happy to spout things they would NEVER say in real life This is pretty much an internet problem, not a Facebook problem. The things people say to each other on forums or Twitter or Facebook, especially when anonymous (but not always), are quite often horrendous.

ccn0p 5y ago
True, and the cat can't be put back in the bag, so it's up to the collective "us", who build the Internet, to rediscover our moral imperative to fix what's broken... and Facebook is a huge chunk of this brokenness.
- joelbluminator 5y ago
  I personally deleted my account but what is it about Facebook that is worse than say Twitter (also deleted) ? Twitter was a big bag of toxicity. Not saying it wasn't interested, tons of interesting people to follow; but the discussions were often rude, racist and hateful. And it poses the same problem of teens following supermodels and what not. What I'm saying is this is about social media in general, not about Facebook which just happens to be the (currently) number 1 platform.
  - yunohn 5y ago
    Twitter is not algorithmically pushing supermodel photos to teenage girls. The target demographics are completely different from Instagram. You are correct however, that Twitter is also toxic; like all social media.
    - jfk13 5y ago
      The more basic issue seems to be that (many) people are toxic. If not always, to everyone, at least some of the time, towards some other people. The problem with social media, then, is that it allows -- indeed encourages, because "engagement" -- all that toxicity to spread so much more widely and rapidly than ever before.
      - yunohn 5y ago
        We could argue about "general/basic problems" all day. This post is about FB suppressing their own research, which showed that Instagram and its algorithm are toxic to teenage girls. > We make body image issues worse for one in three teen girls,” > Teens blame Instagram for increases in the rate of anxiety and depression,” > “This reaction was unprompted and consistent across all groups.”
  - mandevil 5y ago
    That is not what the data researchers currently employed by Facebook said, if you read the article. "They came to the conclusion that some of the problems were specific to Instagram, and not social media more broadly. That is especially true concerning so-called social comparison, which is when people assess their own value in relation to the attractiveness, wealth and success of others." "'Social comparison is worse on Instagram,' states Facebook's deep dive into teen girl body-image issues in 2020, noting that TikTok, a short-video app, is grounded in performance, while users on Snapchat, a rival photo and video-sharing app, are sheltered by jokey filters that 'keep the focus on the face.' In contrast, Instagram focuses heavily on the body and lifestyle." So I suspect that their understanding of the problem is better than yours, and that there is something about Instagram that makes it worse than generic social media.
- redleggedfrog 5y ago
  You're assuming people have morals to appeal to - most don't. When everyone is connected to everyone else the asshole always prevail. The solution is to sever the connections.
  - aduitsis 5y ago
    One would dare say that an overwhelming majority of people does have morals. But a very small minority that doesn't have morals, is causing the illusion that it's most people that don't have them.
    - wyre 5y ago
      As individuals, maybe, but as a society I have a hard time seeing proof when there is normalized wage slavery, the animal industrial complex, and any industry with money or power is deeply corrupted. Right now we have a large percentage of people that refuse to get a vaccine to protect their neighbors. Everyone might have morals, but the bar is low.
      - seneca 5y ago
        Other people not sharing your values is not the same as them not having morals at all.
  - Nagyman 5y ago
    [citation needed] I don't know many such morally-absent folks. Perhaps the perverse incentives in our system mean a bunch of CEOs are quite sociopathic, but on the whole, people seem rather good intentioned to me. The internet certainly serves as a platform for many that would be otherwise shunned IRL, but I don't think they're the general majority...just the majority that decide to voice their opinions. The rest aren't even paying attention - only a small fraction of people have a Twitter account, for example. Even reddit, which can be anonymous, is filled with good discourse, assuming you avoid certain subreddits, and sort by top. Moderation goes a long way to mimicking our more natural IRL tendencies to turn down the assholes. Twitter and Instagram generally lack those tools, so the assholes can be louder and _seem_ more prominent than they are.
acdha 5y ago
This is true but the companies choose how to build and operate these spaces, which includes things like moderation and what they promote. Part of what makes Facebook important here is that they’ve put so much effort into taking over people’s socialization everywhere with an emphasis on being where your friends and family are. The more toxic parts of the Internet used to be different places you had to seek out. Given how profitable that’s been it seems reasonable to expect them to be involved in fixing it.
ethanbond 5y ago
Guess those geniuses earning massive salaries are too dumb to figure out ways to counteract this effect ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Or they’re paid massive salaries not to do that.
josho 5y ago
Facebook is the business that enables this problem on their platform. This problem could disappear overnight if Facebook decided to moderate their platform. Facebook chooses profitability over a safe platform for their users. This is where regulatory bodies should step in. And yes we need regulatory help. Tens of millions in this country are experiencing mental health issues as a result of these platforms. When we understood that other industries were causing a health crisis we regulated them, the same needs to occur here. Note. I don't know what the regulatory solution should be, but we should be having that discussion.
riversflow 5y ago
Doesn't facebook & co design their service to be addictive, or, erm, "maximize engagement"? The internet is fine, as I see it, it's ad-revenue based social media that's the problem. It's absurd to absolve a company as wealthy as facebook who optimizes for "engagement" from their externalities on children.
- topspin 5y ago
  > Doesn't facebook & co design their service to be addictive, or, erm, "maximize engagement"? Is there something on the internet that isn't designed as such? Maybe weather apps... Everything else, from wikipedia to github to stackoverflow to the site you're on now is yet another automated massively multiplayer kudo ranking system. The only meaningful difference appears to be demographic; Facebook is one of the places 'teen girls' spend their time. All I see here is evidence that clicks can still be had by ascribing some concern to the fate of young women[1]. [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missing_white_woman_syndrome https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missing_white_woman_syndrome
  - riversflow 5y ago
    Wikipedia, Github and Stackoverflow don't really have a "feed" much less a opaque, hidden algorithm to induce addictive behavior behind the feed. They don't press you into the app and then send you frequent push notifications. Gamification is benign compared to an interactive news feed developed to drive ad sales. I find pointing at especially wikipedia, but also github as being designed to maximize engagement comparable to social networks as silly. Neither has much to gain from having addicted users, the same can't be said for facebook, IG, or Reddit.
    - topspin 5y ago
      > Wikipedia, Github and Stackoverflow don't really have a "feed" All three have various feed mechanisms. They all have various ranking systems. Every one of them have people employed (even if mere 'volunteers') to 'maximize engagement.' And every one of these systems have people obsessed with their profile. Every. Single. One. They're just mostly not 'teen girls' and so the 'problem' makes for poor headline material. "especially wikipedia" Wikipedia is rife with obsessed 'editors' climbing the rungs of the interweb status ladder. They're easy to find. Look at their profile pages; filled with achievement badges (gamification) and vast profiles of their lives. Does Facebook have 'campaigns' for 'elections' that grant power on the platform? I honestly don't know because I spend no time there, but I know Wikipedia does, and we can only imagine the anxiety involved for these 'candidates.' Thankfully though, they're mostly not 'teen girls' so we're not going to worry about them.

ccn0p 5y ago

True, and the cat can't be put back in the bag, so it's up to the collective "us", who build the Internet, to rediscover our moral imperative to fix what's broken... and Facebook is a huge chunk of this brokenness.

joelbluminator 5y ago
I personally deleted my account but what is it about Facebook that is worse than say Twitter (also deleted) ? Twitter was a big bag of toxicity. Not saying it wasn't interested, tons of interesting people to follow; but the discussions were often rude, racist and hateful. And it poses the same problem of teens following supermodels and what not. What I'm saying is this is about social media in general, not about Facebook which just happens to be the (currently) number 1 platform.
- yunohn 5y ago
  Twitter is not algorithmically pushing supermodel photos to teenage girls. The target demographics are completely different from Instagram. You are correct however, that Twitter is also toxic; like all social media.
  - jfk13 5y ago
    The more basic issue seems to be that (many) people are toxic. If not always, to everyone, at least some of the time, towards some other people. The problem with social media, then, is that it allows -- indeed encourages, because "engagement" -- all that toxicity to spread so much more widely and rapidly than ever before.
    - yunohn 5y ago
      We could argue about "general/basic problems" all day. This post is about FB suppressing their own research, which showed that Instagram and its algorithm are toxic to teenage girls. > We make body image issues worse for one in three teen girls,” > Teens blame Instagram for increases in the rate of anxiety and depression,” > “This reaction was unprompted and consistent across all groups.”
- mandevil 5y ago
  That is not what the data researchers currently employed by Facebook said, if you read the article. "They came to the conclusion that some of the problems were specific to Instagram, and not social media more broadly. That is especially true concerning so-called social comparison, which is when people assess their own value in relation to the attractiveness, wealth and success of others." "'Social comparison is worse on Instagram,' states Facebook's deep dive into teen girl body-image issues in 2020, noting that TikTok, a short-video app, is grounded in performance, while users on Snapchat, a rival photo and video-sharing app, are sheltered by jokey filters that 'keep the focus on the face.' In contrast, Instagram focuses heavily on the body and lifestyle." So I suspect that their understanding of the problem is better than yours, and that there is something about Instagram that makes it worse than generic social media.
redleggedfrog 5y ago
You're assuming people have morals to appeal to - most don't. When everyone is connected to everyone else the asshole always prevail. The solution is to sever the connections.
- aduitsis 5y ago
  One would dare say that an overwhelming majority of people does have morals. But a very small minority that doesn't have morals, is causing the illusion that it's most people that don't have them.
  - wyre 5y ago
    As individuals, maybe, but as a society I have a hard time seeing proof when there is normalized wage slavery, the animal industrial complex, and any industry with money or power is deeply corrupted. Right now we have a large percentage of people that refuse to get a vaccine to protect their neighbors. Everyone might have morals, but the bar is low.
    - seneca 5y ago
      Other people not sharing your values is not the same as them not having morals at all.
- Nagyman 5y ago
  [citation needed] I don't know many such morally-absent folks. Perhaps the perverse incentives in our system mean a bunch of CEOs are quite sociopathic, but on the whole, people seem rather good intentioned to me. The internet certainly serves as a platform for many that would be otherwise shunned IRL, but I don't think they're the general majority...just the majority that decide to voice their opinions. The rest aren't even paying attention - only a small fraction of people have a Twitter account, for example. Even reddit, which can be anonymous, is filled with good discourse, assuming you avoid certain subreddits, and sort by top. Moderation goes a long way to mimicking our more natural IRL tendencies to turn down the assholes. Twitter and Instagram generally lack those tools, so the assholes can be louder and _seem_ more prominent than they are.

acdha 5y ago

This is true but the companies choose how to build and operate these spaces, which includes things like moderation and what they promote. Part of what makes Facebook important here is that they’ve put so much effort into taking over people’s socialization everywhere with an emphasis on being where your friends and family are. The more toxic parts of the Internet used to be different places you had to seek out. Given how profitable that’s been it seems reasonable to expect them to be involved in fixing it.

ethanbond 5y ago

Guess those geniuses earning massive salaries are too dumb to figure out ways to counteract this effect ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Or they’re paid massive salaries not to do that.

josho 5y ago

Facebook is the business that enables this problem on their platform. This problem could disappear overnight if Facebook decided to moderate their platform. Facebook chooses profitability over a safe platform for their users. This is where regulatory bodies should step in. And yes we need regulatory help. Tens of millions in this country are experiencing mental health issues as a result of these platforms. When we understood that other industries were causing a health crisis we regulated them, the same needs to occur here. Note. I don't know what the regulatory solution should be, but we should be having that discussion.

riversflow 5y ago

Doesn't facebook & co design their service to be addictive, or, erm, "maximize engagement"? The internet is fine, as I see it, it's ad-revenue based social media that's the problem. It's absurd to absolve a company as wealthy as facebook who optimizes for "engagement" from their externalities on children.

topspin 5y ago
> Doesn't facebook & co design their service to be addictive, or, erm, "maximize engagement"? Is there something on the internet that isn't designed as such? Maybe weather apps... Everything else, from wikipedia to github to stackoverflow to the site you're on now is yet another automated massively multiplayer kudo ranking system. The only meaningful difference appears to be demographic; Facebook is one of the places 'teen girls' spend their time. All I see here is evidence that clicks can still be had by ascribing some concern to the fate of young women[1]. [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missing_white_woman_syndrome https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missing_white_woman_syndrome
- riversflow 5y ago
  Wikipedia, Github and Stackoverflow don't really have a "feed" much less a opaque, hidden algorithm to induce addictive behavior behind the feed. They don't press you into the app and then send you frequent push notifications. Gamification is benign compared to an interactive news feed developed to drive ad sales. I find pointing at especially wikipedia, but also github as being designed to maximize engagement comparable to social networks as silly. Neither has much to gain from having addicted users, the same can't be said for facebook, IG, or Reddit.
  - topspin 5y ago
    > Wikipedia, Github and Stackoverflow don't really have a "feed" All three have various feed mechanisms. They all have various ranking systems. Every one of them have people employed (even if mere 'volunteers') to 'maximize engagement.' And every one of these systems have people obsessed with their profile. Every. Single. One. They're just mostly not 'teen girls' and so the 'problem' makes for poor headline material. "especially wikipedia" Wikipedia is rife with obsessed 'editors' climbing the rungs of the interweb status ladder. They're easy to find. Look at their profile pages; filled with achievement badges (gamification) and vast profiles of their lives. Does Facebook have 'campaigns' for 'elections' that grant power on the platform? I honestly don't know because I spend no time there, but I know Wikipedia does, and we can only imagine the anxiety involved for these 'candidates.' Thankfully though, they're mostly not 'teen girls' so we're not going to worry about them.