3 ms·

How about numbers / net outcome? If we trade 10 good things for 10 000 terrible, then is it worth?

• stickfigure 5y ago
  According to another commenter here, the research that spawned the WSJ article said Instagram made 41% feel better, 31% worse, and no impact for the other 28%. I haven't found the original material to verify, but if this is accurate, seems like the net outcome argument works in Instagram's favor.
  • ethanwillis 5y ago
    It doesn't necessarily work in Instagram's favor. If the 41% and 31% had a baseline of both feeling "ok" then you took 72% who had a baseline that is acceptable and polarized them into groups who felt better or worse. Is it more favorable to have more people who have a stable baseline or to have one group have a good baseline and another similar sized group with a bad baseline?
    • stickfigure 5y ago
      I don't know, but at the very least the article title is grossly misleading.
• lxgr 5y ago
  Not an ethicist, but I don't think this is how ethical evaluations work in most frameworks.
  • tester756 5y ago
    Definitely, but still saying that "some people benefit from it" is difficult to agree/challenge. Numbers at least give some information.
  • feoren 5y ago
    It could be one input into a "utilitarian" model, which in my opinion describes all of the even remotely viable ethical frameworks.