9 ms·

The less I want is to defend Facebook but I think lately people don't want to acknowledge their own responsibilities. It's like every time there is a problem, t

The less I want is to defend Facebook but I think lately people don't want to acknowledge their own responsibilities. It's like every time there is a problem, the cause is someone/something else. I don't think Instagram is impossed to anyone. Young people can feel the pressure to use it because their friends use it but they aren't forced to do so. From the article it seems that young girls know about the toxicity in the application, why they keep using it? if their parents are aware too, why do they let their daughters use it?

vladvasiliu 5y ago
I'm only speculating, but if "everyone's on instagram", maybe people don't want to be left out? They may know that it's bad for you, just as I expect most smokers to know smoking is bad for you. But the "badness" isn't direct, it grows, and they could think "maybe I'll be able to control it / I can quit whenever I want", whereas if you don't follow current trends (or whatever it is people follow on instagram), you're left out immediately. Of course, by the time you realize you can't quit, it's already too late.
wussboy 5y ago
I have a personal grudge against anyone saying "Why don't the parents take some responsibility to combat a multi-billion dollar company who puts the resources of small countries in to making their children behave in detrimental ways." But I'll not get in to that. :) Facebook and Instagram are drug dealers. Sure, they're not physically distributing a substance, but the social interactions they provide are every bit as addictive. In time, society will abolish or tightly constrain them in the same way society has banned other highly addictive substances. And this is why I don't blame the users.
- aspaviento 5y ago
  > I have a personal grudge against anyone saying (...) There is no need to have any grudge against me (I hope). I get it. I never said being a parent is an easy job. I acknowledge how hard it is but... > Facebook and Instagram are drug dealers If you teach your kids not to consume drugs, why Instagram should be any different?
  - wussboy 5y ago
    Sorry, I agree my grudge comment came off hard. No offence I hope?
    - aspaviento 5y ago
      No offence, I understood from where you came.
  - afavour 5y ago
    > If you teach your kids not to consume drugs, why Instagram should be any different? Imagine if all the other kids at school used drugs on a daily basis, that there was advertising plastered everywhere telling you that drugs are cool, that successful people use drugs and that your worth in this world can be directly tied to successful use of drugs. I don't mean to sound mean here, but are you a parent? If not I suspect you're not really aware of the realities of parenting, particularly once a child becomes teenage. You can only do so much. And you certainly can't win against a multi-billion dollar enterprise determined to make your rebellion-inclined teenager do something.
    - aspaviento 5y ago
      I don't want to use myself as an example because it's just my experience but when I was young people around me smoked, many of my teachers smoked and in TV and movies smoking was still accepted as something approved by society. But I was taught not to do it and never did it. With this I just want to say that I know it's a difficult task but presenting it as a lost battle/impossible seems to me wrong.
      - OvidNaso 5y ago
        Do you really think all those people aroubd you eere taught to smoke?
      - naravara 5y ago
        > With this I just want to say that I know it's a difficult task but presenting it as a lost battle/impossible seems to me wrong. The thing is, we made headway in the battle against smoking by disallowing people from doing all those things. You're not allowed to market to kids, you're not allowed to depict smoking in most TV that kids are likely to watch, you're not allowed to smoke in or near schools and teachers who do are frowned upon. Cigarettes themselves are taxed heavily specifically to price young people out of getting into the habit, vendors are required to card, and the cigarette makers are even required to pay into a fund that promotes anti-smoking messaging. So yes it is definitely not an impossible task. But the things that make it possible require taking it seriously as a danger and addressing it collectively.
- smithza 5y ago
  I will say emphatically that parents of teens are the most influential people in their lives, whether acknowledged or no. It is likely the case that parents will forever be the most influential people in someone's life and the positions you take, the behaviors you engage in, and what you teach will stick with them for their whole lives. Take a stance and teach them. They may rebel, they may not, but years down the road your opinion will likely inform their reflections and help guide their future actions. getting off soapbox
  - lotsofpulp 5y ago
    While parents may or may not be the “most” influential people in a child’s life, I think it is certainly possible that the influence of parents/family/tribe can decrease in relation to the influence of the broader world due to changes outside of the parents’ control. I certainly think the internet gave me access to many more humans, ideas, and tribes than my parents' generation had access to, and it would be hard for me to see how it would have been possible for my parents to have as much influence on me as their parents had on them. I would even say it is indisputable there are forces beyond parents’ control unless the parents opt to live an Amish lifestyle, such as using devices connected to the internet and various social networks. If you do not give it to your kid, someone at school will, and even more, you probably need to teach your kid how to play the game rather than have them start it blind while the other players have experience.
  - pavel_lishin 5y ago
    There are different levels of influence, though. Yes, parents can assert a lot of control over their children, but at a certain age they start looking at their peers and being influenced by them to a tremendous degree. And not all parents realize, or can realize, everything that goes on in their childrens' lives.
  - SamoyedFurFluff 5y ago
    Parental control cannot and can never be used as a singular or even more influential factor to societal level problems. Parents can have all the best intentions in the world but if the society they’re trying to raise children in is broken, they can’t protect those children forever.
- hilbert42 5y ago
  The term I've used for years is electronic heroin. It's apt methinks.
- syshum 5y ago
  >>In time, society will abolish or tightly constrain them in the same way society has banned other highly addictive substances. I hope not, the War on Drugs is one of the biggest disasters in modern history, directly linked to untold problems in society
  - Sohcahtoa82 5y ago
    You've now got me picturing a guy holding tablets in a trench coat in a dark alley with asking some teenagers passing buy if they wanna buy some time on social media. "I got it all, buddy. Instagram, Snapchat, Facebook...I can hook you up."
- bserge 5y ago
  > And this is why I don't blame the users. Not even a little? Users aren't brainless, as much as they'd want to make you believe.
- fsflover 5y ago
  > Facebook and Instagram are drug dealers. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24579498 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24579498
- skinnymuch 5y ago
  What will be the crack and cocaine in this situation? What other untold horrors will unfold while privileged or naive citizens and politicians all around stay cozy whilst the war on drugs caused havoc and destroyed so many lives and communities. “We” certainly blamed the users of addictive substances and vilified or at least looked down on them. That is until it was heavily white and middle class or above people with opoids. Even then it was slow, but some things were done. Far more than what was done with other highly addictive substances. It’s a disgrace. I shutter to think any drug banning history happen in any other context.
- atonalfreerider 5y ago
  Ditto for online pornography. And unlike chemical drugs that have to be transported and administered, these images and videos fly through the wires into childrens' bedrooms. I know, because like most children, I was exposed to online porn at a young age and was addicted to it well into my adult life. These companies need regulation, because they are bad actors.
  - Animats 5y ago
    Ditto for online pornography. Nah. That's been studied heavily. Here's an overview from the National Institutes of Health.[1] Wikipedia has an overview.[2] The overall conclusion is that most of the research is of terrible quality and there's no big measurable effect. [1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6352245/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6352245/ [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_pornography https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_pornography
    - atonalfreerider 5y ago
      Here is strong evidence to the contrary from the NIH: >The proposed DSM-5, slated to publish in May of 2014, contains in this new addition the diagnosis of Hypersexual Disorder, which includes problematic, compulsive pornography use. Bostwick and Bucci, in their report out of the Mayo Clinic on treating Internet pornography addiction with naltrexone, wrote “…cellular adaptations in the (pornography) addict’s PFC result in increased salience of drug-associated stimuli, decreased salience of non-drug stimuli, and decreased interest in pursuing goal-directed activities central to survival.” Source: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3050060/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3050060/
      - Animats 5y ago
        That's from one case, and it's worth reading.[1] [1] https://www.mayoclinicproceedings.org/article/S0025-6196(11)60846-X/fulltext https://www.mayoclinicproceedings.org/article/S0025-6196(11)...
    - passivate 5y ago
- vineyardmike 5y ago
  > the social interactions they provide are every bit as addictive. I'm not familiar with actual research in this space, but i would imagine that its similarly addictive to being with friends IRL? (To me) social media is a great tool to connect with friends and stay present even after we move away and work and pandemic quarantine. Its a suppliment for IRL relationships. I used to live with friends in college, and i used to go out and get food or drinks or whatever almost daily to get my "fix" of socialization. Are social networks really that different? I recognize that some (teen girl?) people might wish they looked like a supermodel on social media or get jealousy of the lives of influences, but is that different from old magazine and movie stars? Is the mixture of "social" and "influences" to one news feed detrimental? Is there more exposure? What makes social networking more "addictive" (and therefore dangerous) than actual socialization?
- passivate 5y ago
  Its true that social media is addictive, and also that companies intentionally design it to be so, but everyone bears some responsibility on that - from the companies, to the users, to the engineers working on it, to online authors referencing it/promoting it, etc, etc. So even if we argue about who gets what percentage of blame, it doesn't really change anything. We may convince 10-20 people in the comments section, but thats not really a solution. We need to contribute on a social media de-addiction guide or something.. :)
hetspookjee 5y ago
I don't get how you can end up in this line of thought? Can you ask these same questions about the abusers of opioids? Or Tobacco? Don't you have any bad habits you have difficulty shaking off? Genuinely surprised.
toss1 5y ago
Then do not defend facebook. Period Their business model is poisoning the well of society, and strip-mining its value by breaking the bonds that hold it together. The very best that can be concluded about it's entire leadership is that they entirely lack any hint of moral compass or sense of responsibility to the society from which they extract their wealth. The more I observe their behavior, the more it looks like worse conclusions are supported by the data. Just stop justifying things on technical bases. It is what FB is doing the the top post above
bserge 5y ago
I just said the same thing ha. Yeah, it is difficult for people to admit they're at fault. Blame is justified only when someone is forcing you to do something or keeping you from something.
- anigbrowl 5y ago
  How about when a person is deceived into doing something? As a general matter, rather in the context of this specific news story.
twoWhlsGud 5y ago
There's an old joke: When you owe the bank a million dollars, it's your problem. When you owe them a billion dollars, it's their problem. (these numbers likely need adjustment for inflation...) If FB/Instagram use is damaging a substantial percentage of your population, it's your problem, regardless of whatever moral frame you decide to put around it.
zelphirkalt 5y ago
Right, no one is forcing anyone to use their services. It is only that they create an environment, which is actively damaging other "players" in the environment: If you are not using it, uninformed people will laugh about you (peer pressure, network effect). Furthermore, because so many people use FB, many people will use FB to organize events, which one does not even know about, because of not being on FB. In the end, they will spin it, because they do not know better themselves, that it is you, who isolated yourself from the rest of "society". I have experienced it many times. I have missed out on probably many things over time. Yet I refuse to be a part of FB and stuff like that. However, I am only one person. The peer pressure probably works on most people, because most are not as informed about FB (and Instagram and whatever else they own) and what it does, as the crowd on HN is for example. That means, that the argument of "no one is forcing anyone" is a bad one, because you would need to add "but they will make your life worse, if you do not join!". It is kind of an extortion, which an uninformed society unknowingly is excerting on the individual, put in motion by dark patterns, privacy-hostility and bad practices on the side of FB.
picardythird 5y ago
> From the article it seems that young girls know about the toxicity in the application, why they keep using it? This is a disheartening take.
- TedShiller 5y ago
  Yeah why do smokers keep smoking?
pyrale 5y ago
In order to answer this question, we would have to see how the social pressure materializes when people leave the network. For instance, I'm not sure becoming a social outcast is great for anxiety and depression issues.
strken 5y ago
The difference is scope. On a personal level, yes, individuals should stop using Instagram if it's harming them. When we're discussing systems thinking and trying to understand trends that affect entire states, entire nations, or the whole world, we look at the impact of systemic interventions. Unless telling people to take responsibility for themselves is an effective systemic intervention (it might be!) then it's not very useful, except as a PR strategy to deflect blame from Facebook.
Aerroon 5y ago
>It's like every time there is a problem, the cause is someone/something else. And every time somebody else must do something about it in a way that affects everybody.
OneTimePetes 5y ago
Socialize the dutys, privatize the rights

vladvasiliu 5y ago

I'm only speculating, but if "everyone's on instagram", maybe people don't want to be left out? They may know that it's bad for you, just as I expect most smokers to know smoking is bad for you. But the "badness" isn't direct, it grows, and they could think "maybe I'll be able to control it / I can quit whenever I want", whereas if you don't follow current trends (or whatever it is people follow on instagram), you're left out immediately. Of course, by the time you realize you can't quit, it's already too late.

wussboy 5y ago

I have a personal grudge against anyone saying "Why don't the parents take some responsibility to combat a multi-billion dollar company who puts the resources of small countries in to making their children behave in detrimental ways." But I'll not get in to that. :) Facebook and Instagram are drug dealers. Sure, they're not physically distributing a substance, but the social interactions they provide are every bit as addictive. In time, society will abolish or tightly constrain them in the same way society has banned other highly addictive substances. And this is why I don't blame the users.

aspaviento 5y ago
> I have a personal grudge against anyone saying (...) There is no need to have any grudge against me (I hope). I get it. I never said being a parent is an easy job. I acknowledge how hard it is but... > Facebook and Instagram are drug dealers If you teach your kids not to consume drugs, why Instagram should be any different?
- wussboy 5y ago
  Sorry, I agree my grudge comment came off hard. No offence I hope?
  - aspaviento 5y ago
    No offence, I understood from where you came.
- afavour 5y ago
  > If you teach your kids not to consume drugs, why Instagram should be any different? Imagine if all the other kids at school used drugs on a daily basis, that there was advertising plastered everywhere telling you that drugs are cool, that successful people use drugs and that your worth in this world can be directly tied to successful use of drugs. I don't mean to sound mean here, but are you a parent? If not I suspect you're not really aware of the realities of parenting, particularly once a child becomes teenage. You can only do so much. And you certainly can't win against a multi-billion dollar enterprise determined to make your rebellion-inclined teenager do something.
  - aspaviento 5y ago
    I don't want to use myself as an example because it's just my experience but when I was young people around me smoked, many of my teachers smoked and in TV and movies smoking was still accepted as something approved by society. But I was taught not to do it and never did it. With this I just want to say that I know it's a difficult task but presenting it as a lost battle/impossible seems to me wrong.
    - OvidNaso 5y ago
      Do you really think all those people aroubd you eere taught to smoke?
    - naravara 5y ago
      > With this I just want to say that I know it's a difficult task but presenting it as a lost battle/impossible seems to me wrong. The thing is, we made headway in the battle against smoking by disallowing people from doing all those things. You're not allowed to market to kids, you're not allowed to depict smoking in most TV that kids are likely to watch, you're not allowed to smoke in or near schools and teachers who do are frowned upon. Cigarettes themselves are taxed heavily specifically to price young people out of getting into the habit, vendors are required to card, and the cigarette makers are even required to pay into a fund that promotes anti-smoking messaging. So yes it is definitely not an impossible task. But the things that make it possible require taking it seriously as a danger and addressing it collectively.
smithza 5y ago
I will say emphatically that parents of teens are the most influential people in their lives, whether acknowledged or no. It is likely the case that parents will forever be the most influential people in someone's life and the positions you take, the behaviors you engage in, and what you teach will stick with them for their whole lives. Take a stance and teach them. They may rebel, they may not, but years down the road your opinion will likely inform their reflections and help guide their future actions. getting off soapbox
- lotsofpulp 5y ago
  While parents may or may not be the “most” influential people in a child’s life, I think it is certainly possible that the influence of parents/family/tribe can decrease in relation to the influence of the broader world due to changes outside of the parents’ control. I certainly think the internet gave me access to many more humans, ideas, and tribes than my parents' generation had access to, and it would be hard for me to see how it would have been possible for my parents to have as much influence on me as their parents had on them. I would even say it is indisputable there are forces beyond parents’ control unless the parents opt to live an Amish lifestyle, such as using devices connected to the internet and various social networks. If you do not give it to your kid, someone at school will, and even more, you probably need to teach your kid how to play the game rather than have them start it blind while the other players have experience.
- pavel_lishin 5y ago
  There are different levels of influence, though. Yes, parents can assert a lot of control over their children, but at a certain age they start looking at their peers and being influenced by them to a tremendous degree. And not all parents realize, or can realize, everything that goes on in their childrens' lives.
- SamoyedFurFluff 5y ago
  Parental control cannot and can never be used as a singular or even more influential factor to societal level problems. Parents can have all the best intentions in the world but if the society they’re trying to raise children in is broken, they can’t protect those children forever.
hilbert42 5y ago
The term I've used for years is electronic heroin. It's apt methinks.
syshum 5y ago
>>In time, society will abolish or tightly constrain them in the same way society has banned other highly addictive substances. I hope not, the War on Drugs is one of the biggest disasters in modern history, directly linked to untold problems in society
- Sohcahtoa82 5y ago
  You've now got me picturing a guy holding tablets in a trench coat in a dark alley with asking some teenagers passing buy if they wanna buy some time on social media. "I got it all, buddy. Instagram, Snapchat, Facebook...I can hook you up."
bserge 5y ago
> And this is why I don't blame the users. Not even a little? Users aren't brainless, as much as they'd want to make you believe.
fsflover 5y ago
> Facebook and Instagram are drug dealers. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24579498 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24579498
skinnymuch 5y ago
What will be the crack and cocaine in this situation? What other untold horrors will unfold while privileged or naive citizens and politicians all around stay cozy whilst the war on drugs caused havoc and destroyed so many lives and communities. “We” certainly blamed the users of addictive substances and vilified or at least looked down on them. That is until it was heavily white and middle class or above people with opoids. Even then it was slow, but some things were done. Far more than what was done with other highly addictive substances. It’s a disgrace. I shutter to think any drug banning history happen in any other context.
atonalfreerider 5y ago
Ditto for online pornography. And unlike chemical drugs that have to be transported and administered, these images and videos fly through the wires into childrens' bedrooms. I know, because like most children, I was exposed to online porn at a young age and was addicted to it well into my adult life. These companies need regulation, because they are bad actors.
- Animats 5y ago
  Ditto for online pornography. Nah. That's been studied heavily. Here's an overview from the National Institutes of Health.[1] Wikipedia has an overview.[2] The overall conclusion is that most of the research is of terrible quality and there's no big measurable effect. [1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6352245/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6352245/ [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_pornography https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_pornography
  - atonalfreerider 5y ago
    Here is strong evidence to the contrary from the NIH: >The proposed DSM-5, slated to publish in May of 2014, contains in this new addition the diagnosis of Hypersexual Disorder, which includes problematic, compulsive pornography use. Bostwick and Bucci, in their report out of the Mayo Clinic on treating Internet pornography addiction with naltrexone, wrote “…cellular adaptations in the (pornography) addict’s PFC result in increased salience of drug-associated stimuli, decreased salience of non-drug stimuli, and decreased interest in pursuing goal-directed activities central to survival.” Source: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3050060/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3050060/
    - Animats 5y ago
      That's from one case, and it's worth reading.[1] [1] https://www.mayoclinicproceedings.org/article/S0025-6196(11)60846-X/fulltext https://www.mayoclinicproceedings.org/article/S0025-6196(11)...
  - passivate 5y ago
vineyardmike 5y ago
> the social interactions they provide are every bit as addictive. I'm not familiar with actual research in this space, but i would imagine that its similarly addictive to being with friends IRL? (To me) social media is a great tool to connect with friends and stay present even after we move away and work and pandemic quarantine. Its a suppliment for IRL relationships. I used to live with friends in college, and i used to go out and get food or drinks or whatever almost daily to get my "fix" of socialization. Are social networks really that different? I recognize that some (teen girl?) people might wish they looked like a supermodel on social media or get jealousy of the lives of influences, but is that different from old magazine and movie stars? Is the mixture of "social" and "influences" to one news feed detrimental? Is there more exposure? What makes social networking more "addictive" (and therefore dangerous) than actual socialization?
passivate 5y ago
Its true that social media is addictive, and also that companies intentionally design it to be so, but everyone bears some responsibility on that - from the companies, to the users, to the engineers working on it, to online authors referencing it/promoting it, etc, etc. So even if we argue about who gets what percentage of blame, it doesn't really change anything. We may convince 10-20 people in the comments section, but thats not really a solution. We need to contribute on a social media de-addiction guide or something.. :)

hetspookjee 5y ago

I don't get how you can end up in this line of thought? Can you ask these same questions about the abusers of opioids? Or Tobacco? Don't you have any bad habits you have difficulty shaking off? Genuinely surprised.

toss1 5y ago

Then do not defend facebook. Period Their business model is poisoning the well of society, and strip-mining its value by breaking the bonds that hold it together. The very best that can be concluded about it's entire leadership is that they entirely lack any hint of moral compass or sense of responsibility to the society from which they extract their wealth. The more I observe their behavior, the more it looks like worse conclusions are supported by the data. Just stop justifying things on technical bases. It is what FB is doing the the top post above

bserge 5y ago

I just said the same thing ha. Yeah, it is difficult for people to admit they're at fault. Blame is justified only when someone is forcing you to do something or keeping you from something.

anigbrowl 5y ago
How about when a person is deceived into doing something? As a general matter, rather in the context of this specific news story.

twoWhlsGud 5y ago

There's an old joke: When you owe the bank a million dollars, it's your problem. When you owe them a billion dollars, it's their problem. (these numbers likely need adjustment for inflation...) If FB/Instagram use is damaging a substantial percentage of your population, it's your problem, regardless of whatever moral frame you decide to put around it.

zelphirkalt 5y ago

Right, no one is forcing anyone to use their services. It is only that they create an environment, which is actively damaging other "players" in the environment: If you are not using it, uninformed people will laugh about you (peer pressure, network effect). Furthermore, because so many people use FB, many people will use FB to organize events, which one does not even know about, because of not being on FB. In the end, they will spin it, because they do not know better themselves, that it is you, who isolated yourself from the rest of "society". I have experienced it many times. I have missed out on probably many things over time. Yet I refuse to be a part of FB and stuff like that. However, I am only one person. The peer pressure probably works on most people, because most are not as informed about FB (and Instagram and whatever else they own) and what it does, as the crowd on HN is for example. That means, that the argument of "no one is forcing anyone" is a bad one, because you would need to add "but they will make your life worse, if you do not join!". It is kind of an extortion, which an uninformed society unknowingly is excerting on the individual, put in motion by dark patterns, privacy-hostility and bad practices on the side of FB.

picardythird 5y ago

> From the article it seems that young girls know about the toxicity in the application, why they keep using it? This is a disheartening take.

TedShiller 5y ago
Yeah why do smokers keep smoking?

pyrale 5y ago

In order to answer this question, we would have to see how the social pressure materializes when people leave the network. For instance, I'm not sure becoming a social outcast is great for anxiety and depression issues.

strken 5y ago

The difference is scope. On a personal level, yes, individuals should stop using Instagram if it's harming them. When we're discussing systems thinking and trying to understand trends that affect entire states, entire nations, or the whole world, we look at the impact of systemic interventions. Unless telling people to take responsibility for themselves is an effective systemic intervention (it might be!) then it's not very useful, except as a PR strategy to deflect blame from Facebook.

Aerroon 5y ago

>It's like every time there is a problem, the cause is someone/something else. And every time somebody else must do something about it in a way that affects everybody.

OneTimePetes 5y ago

Socialize the dutys, privatize the rights