6 ms·

"Using social apps to connect with other people can have positive mental-health benefits" That statement cannot be false because it is devoid of any content, b

"Using social apps to connect with other people can have positive mental-health benefits" That statement cannot be false because it is devoid of any content, being a mere hypothetical. The fact that it is surrounded by "research" is meaningless as well, as the aforementioned sentence is like saying "the elements of the empty set fulfil all properties"... So no, they are not contradicting themselves. They are simply and wantonly misleading people.

jxramos 5y ago
wow this is fascinating, taking the veneer of something in the tautological space and using it as sheep's clothing over something known to be a wolf. There's something curious about this form of misleading that deserves to be identified and named to be called out in future instances.
- dweekly 5y ago
  "Foods containing sugar have been found to save lives in a number of studies." "Regular smoking use is associated with lower BMI, which is shown to correlate with improved heart health and lower mortality rates." "Use of fossil fuels powers a number of ecology-preserving tasks, allowing us to care for the environment in a way we could not without this amazing source of Earth-loving fuel."
  - gerry_shaw 5y ago
    You are far too good at crafting these passages.
    - dgs_sgd 5y ago
      It's fairly easy if you understand the meaning of "can be true". There can be countless instances where it's not true but if you find just _one_ instance where it's true, then your "can be true" statement must be true.
  - pmarreck 5y ago
    Love it. It still needs a name. Here let me try: Disproportionate benefit insinuation error: Implying (without explicitly stating that it has more benefits than disadvantages because that would be a disprovable lie) that because something has some benefit, it is overall helpful. Or just "plausible deniability"- factually stating the existence of a beneficial tree, but omitting mention of the harmful forest Or just "cherry-picking" Or to cover cases where a harm is insinuated/emphasized in the same way in order to discredit something (see: literally all the antivax data, antiscience, antimedicine... "trust doctors, you mean like the ones who prescribed thalidomide?")... "Misrepresenting the forest"
    - jxramos 5y ago
      maybe a good contraction would be a disbeni
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
- hikerclimber1 5y ago
  Everything is subjective. Especially laws. So everyone should revolt and over throw the us government.
- javajosh 5y ago
  It has a name, its called "sophistry", and the practitioners "sophists". [1] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sophist https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sophist
  - jahnu 5y ago
    Nice short episode on them here for those who are interested https://historyofphilosophy.net/sophists https://historyofphilosophy.net/sophists
  - rwnspace 5y ago
    Gorgias was perhaps the most well-known ancient Sophist, and is also the namesake of one of Plato's Dialogues, which happens to be one of my favourites. Highly recommend reading the above, and into sophistry and rhetoric more generally, if you're the sort that gets annoyed by modern bullshit, and wants a set of names and tactics to defend the sanctity (and sanity) of your opinions.
  - Socketier 5y ago
    Once you notice the "Weasel words" [1] you'll never see a press release like this one the same way again. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weasel_word https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weasel_word
- mensetmanusman 5y ago
  This is called creating a narrative by cherry picking facts. This is what the media does, and is why so many people (most Americans per Pew) distrust them.
- hundreddaysoff 5y ago
  Disingenuous non sequitur?
treis 5y ago
The research the GP's quote is referencing said Instagram made 41% feel better, 31% worse, and no impact for the other 28%. It's not clear why that can be used as evidence that it makes some girls feel worse about themselves but that it makes some girls feel better about themselves.
- stickfigure 5y ago
  Probably any social activity is similar. I'm willing to bet the statistics for "high school prom" are much worse. And then there's Cosmo and Vogue...
  - pempem 5y ago
    Your note that the world is sexist and many things make women, teens and girls continously negatively evaluate themselves is something I agree. The rest I would truly contest. Prom is not an every single morning, universe commenting event no matter how the teenage brain may attempt to blow it up. Cosmo and Vogue do not have the same continuous feedback loop and clearly have 100x (1000x? 1mnx?) less content being created, repeated, refreshed, etc. Its a magazine. If you want to invoke their IG handles honestly I could find 100s of influencers with more reach and engagement
    - vagrantJin 5y ago
      > Your note that the world is sexist and many things make women, teens and girls continously negatively evaluate themselves How did you pull this from a rather benign statement about high school prom and magazines?
    - raxxorrax 5y ago
      I think in contemporary culture and media in western nations sexism is vastly exaggerated. At least if you use the classical definition. Someone who is sexist rarely burdens people with expectations since those are by definition quite low. I believe other social phenomena are responsible for this, mainly forms of peer pressur. The stories influencers use to lure their audiences often invokes the threat of sexism and that naturally increases fears that might lead to a feedback loop.
Frost1x 5y ago
Most corporate PR statements are crafted this way. They often give the illusion of saying something because all the key words of saying something are there, but they're often crafted in a way that if read carefully, say almost nothing at all or have a giant disclaimer in small font that essentially says *none of this maybe true and is subject to change. A lot of pharmaceutical advertisements do this to: this might help you, it might also kill you, you choose(!) but please ask your doctor about us anyways and throw us some money.
- jdavis703 5y ago
  But in the case of pharmaceuticals there is at least rigorous scientific evidence behind the statements. Even so, science does not have all the answers, and to pretend so would be making a mockery of the scientific method.
- rlayton2 5y ago
  I love looking at pharmaceutical advertising in this way - what they do say is the absolute legally maximum they could say about the product. If there were stronger claims, they could make them. Therefore, if they say "may help against X", then it doesn't really, because if they had substantial evidence of that, they would state that.
dgs_sgd 5y ago
It's a true statement. Surely connecting via social apps has had positive mental health benefits on at least one person. That alone would make it true. I think the problem is most people probably read the statement and don't realize just how weak the evidence required to make it true is.
- zo1 5y ago
  I would interpret it as "connecting via social apps has a greater than absolute 0 probability of giving positive mental health benefits".
  - dgs_sgd 5y ago
    Then I think we're in agreement? "Connecting via social apps has a non-0 probability of giving (to whom? at least one person?) positive mental health benefits".
    - TedShiller 5y ago
      Exactly. If one person in the world benefits from using Instagram and the other 7 billion people get depressed, then the statement FB made is still true.
    - zo1 5y ago
      I am agreeing with you. Just mentioning how I frame/see it in my head.
TeeMassive 5y ago
Yes. When he goes to those hearings, Zuckerberg fixes a spot and begins all of his answers with "[pause] Senator... [pause] [Generic reassuring statement] <very clever and deceptive answer>. (https://youtu.be/XXuk-WSDDRw?t=111 https://youtu.be/XXuk-WSDDRw?t=111) There's a conspiracy theory stating that he's wearing AR contact lenses such as those (https://www.wired.com/story/mojo-vision-smart-contact-lens/ https://www.wired.com/story/mojo-vision-smart-contact-lens/) and we know he's been working on this since 2017 (https://www.dezeen.com/2017/04/20/mark-zuckerberg-facebook-end-tv-augmented-reality-takeover-design-technology-news/ https://www.dezeen.com/2017/04/20/mark-zuckerberg-facebook-e...).

jxramos 5y ago

wow this is fascinating, taking the veneer of something in the tautological space and using it as sheep's clothing over something known to be a wolf. There's something curious about this form of misleading that deserves to be identified and named to be called out in future instances.

dweekly 5y ago
"Foods containing sugar have been found to save lives in a number of studies." "Regular smoking use is associated with lower BMI, which is shown to correlate with improved heart health and lower mortality rates." "Use of fossil fuels powers a number of ecology-preserving tasks, allowing us to care for the environment in a way we could not without this amazing source of Earth-loving fuel."
- gerry_shaw 5y ago
  You are far too good at crafting these passages.
  - dgs_sgd 5y ago
    It's fairly easy if you understand the meaning of "can be true". There can be countless instances where it's not true but if you find just _one_ instance where it's true, then your "can be true" statement must be true.
- pmarreck 5y ago
  Love it. It still needs a name. Here let me try: Disproportionate benefit insinuation error: Implying (without explicitly stating that it has more benefits than disadvantages because that would be a disprovable lie) that because something has some benefit, it is overall helpful. Or just "plausible deniability"- factually stating the existence of a beneficial tree, but omitting mention of the harmful forest Or just "cherry-picking" Or to cover cases where a harm is insinuated/emphasized in the same way in order to discredit something (see: literally all the antivax data, antiscience, antimedicine... "trust doctors, you mean like the ones who prescribed thalidomide?")... "Misrepresenting the forest"
  - jxramos 5y ago
    maybe a good contraction would be a disbeni
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
hikerclimber1 5y ago
Everything is subjective. Especially laws. So everyone should revolt and over throw the us government.
javajosh 5y ago
It has a name, its called "sophistry", and the practitioners "sophists". [1] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sophist https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sophist
- jahnu 5y ago
  Nice short episode on them here for those who are interested https://historyofphilosophy.net/sophists https://historyofphilosophy.net/sophists
- rwnspace 5y ago
  Gorgias was perhaps the most well-known ancient Sophist, and is also the namesake of one of Plato's Dialogues, which happens to be one of my favourites. Highly recommend reading the above, and into sophistry and rhetoric more generally, if you're the sort that gets annoyed by modern bullshit, and wants a set of names and tactics to defend the sanctity (and sanity) of your opinions.
- Socketier 5y ago
  Once you notice the "Weasel words" [1] you'll never see a press release like this one the same way again. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weasel_word https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weasel_word
mensetmanusman 5y ago
This is called creating a narrative by cherry picking facts. This is what the media does, and is why so many people (most Americans per Pew) distrust them.
hundreddaysoff 5y ago
Disingenuous non sequitur?

treis 5y ago

The research the GP's quote is referencing said Instagram made 41% feel better, 31% worse, and no impact for the other 28%. It's not clear why that can be used as evidence that it makes some girls feel worse about themselves but that it makes some girls feel better about themselves.

stickfigure 5y ago
Probably any social activity is similar. I'm willing to bet the statistics for "high school prom" are much worse. And then there's Cosmo and Vogue...
- pempem 5y ago
  Your note that the world is sexist and many things make women, teens and girls continously negatively evaluate themselves is something I agree. The rest I would truly contest. Prom is not an every single morning, universe commenting event no matter how the teenage brain may attempt to blow it up. Cosmo and Vogue do not have the same continuous feedback loop and clearly have 100x (1000x? 1mnx?) less content being created, repeated, refreshed, etc. Its a magazine. If you want to invoke their IG handles honestly I could find 100s of influencers with more reach and engagement
  - vagrantJin 5y ago
    > Your note that the world is sexist and many things make women, teens and girls continously negatively evaluate themselves How did you pull this from a rather benign statement about high school prom and magazines?
  - raxxorrax 5y ago
    I think in contemporary culture and media in western nations sexism is vastly exaggerated. At least if you use the classical definition. Someone who is sexist rarely burdens people with expectations since those are by definition quite low. I believe other social phenomena are responsible for this, mainly forms of peer pressur. The stories influencers use to lure their audiences often invokes the threat of sexism and that naturally increases fears that might lead to a feedback loop.

Frost1x 5y ago

Most corporate PR statements are crafted this way. They often give the illusion of saying something because all the key words of saying something are there, but they're often crafted in a way that if read carefully, say almost nothing at all or have a giant disclaimer in small font that essentially says *none of this maybe true and is subject to change. A lot of pharmaceutical advertisements do this to: this might help you, it might also kill you, you choose(!) but please ask your doctor about us anyways and throw us some money.

jdavis703 5y ago
But in the case of pharmaceuticals there is at least rigorous scientific evidence behind the statements. Even so, science does not have all the answers, and to pretend so would be making a mockery of the scientific method.
rlayton2 5y ago
I love looking at pharmaceutical advertising in this way - what they do say is the absolute legally maximum they could say about the product. If there were stronger claims, they could make them. Therefore, if they say "may help against X", then it doesn't really, because if they had substantial evidence of that, they would state that.

dgs_sgd 5y ago

It's a true statement. Surely connecting via social apps has had positive mental health benefits on at least one person. That alone would make it true. I think the problem is most people probably read the statement and don't realize just how weak the evidence required to make it true is.

zo1 5y ago
I would interpret it as "connecting via social apps has a greater than absolute 0 probability of giving positive mental health benefits".
- dgs_sgd 5y ago
  Then I think we're in agreement? "Connecting via social apps has a non-0 probability of giving (to whom? at least one person?) positive mental health benefits".
  - TedShiller 5y ago
    Exactly. If one person in the world benefits from using Instagram and the other 7 billion people get depressed, then the statement FB made is still true.
  - zo1 5y ago
    I am agreeing with you. Just mentioning how I frame/see it in my head.

TeeMassive 5y ago

Yes. When he goes to those hearings, Zuckerberg fixes a spot and begins all of his answers with "[pause] Senator... [pause] [Generic reassuring statement] <very clever and deceptive answer>. (https://youtu.be/XXuk-WSDDRw?t=111 https://youtu.be/XXuk-WSDDRw?t=111) There's a conspiracy theory stating that he's wearing AR contact lenses such as those (https://www.wired.com/story/mojo-vision-smart-contact-lens/ https://www.wired.com/story/mojo-vision-smart-contact-lens/) and we know he's been working on this since 2017 (https://www.dezeen.com/2017/04/20/mark-zuckerberg-facebook-end-tv-augmented-reality-takeover-design-technology-news/ https://www.dezeen.com/2017/04/20/mark-zuckerberg-facebook-e...).