16 ms·

Facebook under fire over secret teen research

274 points by ColinWright 5y ago

raman162 5y ago
Related recent discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28523688 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28523688
notyourwork 5y ago
Does anyone remember Cosmopolitan and other like magazines. Teenage body issues and associated anxiety are not new. What has happened is we gave everyone internet access so now they can look at pictures of unrealistic bodies all day everywhere they go. The result is body dysmorphia on steroids.
- dhimes 5y ago
  Young men are vulnerable to this, too. In fact, it's not unreasonable to think that it doesn't do any good for older men and women, either.
  - edoceo 5y ago
    Setting unrealistic expectations and then failing to meet them is bad-feels for all brains.
  - 6gvONxR4sf7o 5y ago
    If I recall the FB research from that other thread correctly, it's about half as bad for young men. Instagram is bad for everyone.
- mc32 5y ago
  It's true, but how many girls bought/could afford Cosmo, Elle, etc. subs? I suspect it wasn't as many as have Insta/Fb accounts --which is world-wide and reaches into every class and society. And given we now know it's severely detrimental to their well-being, I think it deserves serious consideration and requires change. I don't mean to censor people, but we must stop fomenting the image problem on purpose via programming and advertising and social engagement. Facebook knows it's a problem and they should tackle it (as well as any such legacy magazines and the fashion industry in general).
  - FpUser 5y ago
    >"Facebook knows it's a problem and they should tackle it" Preface: Not a lover of Facebook and "social media" in general and do not use it as such. However having FB "tackle / promote" way of life I think is totally wrong. It is up to the parents and schools to tech kids that there are more interesting things in the world than this mental masturbation on computer / phone screen watching somebody else's life.
  - thaumasiotes 5y ago
    > but how many girls bought/could afford Cosmo, Elle, etc. subs? This is not a particularly relevant question. The number of girls with their own subscription to Cosmopolitan vastly undercounts the number of girls reading Cosmopolitan, which was every girl who was interested. These magazines are stocked in libraries, shared friend to friend, and left in public places. The only thing a subscription gets you is that you can read the new issue a few days earlier than everybody else.
  - notyourwork 5y ago
    Where I grew up girls read Cosmo and talked about it even as teenagers. That's my point, it wasn't as prevalent or accessible as it is today. We made it more accessible and hence the problem exacerbated.
- agallant 5y ago
  As another example "fake news" isn't new either, e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellow_journalism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellow_journalism However, I'd suggest that the new challenge isn't simply scale and omnipresence but algorithmization - modern platforms can tune and target to the level of the individual. In the past, (dis)information had to be broadcast in a far more one-size-fits-most style, perhaps segmented by broad geographic or demographic groups at best.
- standardUser 5y ago
  I truly don't understands this perspective. It used to be that mass media was a tightly-controlled, walled-off garden. The set number of popular and accessible magazines, tv stations and films suffered from far more centralized control, had far less inclusion in its leadership and staff, and resulted in a hyper-narrow range of acceptable beauty and image standards. It was borderline dystopian. Young people, by and large, could only view media that was part of this monoculture. They were already seeing it all everywhere they went. Now, with just a little looking, people can find an entire universe of body-positive media and communities that simply did not exist in the 80's and 90's. So while there may be more ways to transmit body negativity thanks to the internet, I'd argue there is not more body negativity because we had already maxed it out. It's just as bad as it had been for decades. The difference now is an alternative exists!
  - bayindirh 5y ago
    Maybe this body negativity came from inaccessible people, who were famous/connected enough to be on these pages. Now, everyone can do it, and many are around you, accessible. They are your friend's friends or your friends. Moreover, mobile applications and web applications allows you to touch up your appearance. You look and say "I'd be so much beautiful/handsome this way, but I'm not, and never will be". Self criticism inflicts the greatest damage since there's no restraint, no barrier to dampen down to its effects. It's very destructive.
  - mc32 5y ago
    I think the problem is people think there isn't an attractive main stream that people look to regardless of microculture (see Kaitlin Jenner for example as someone who finds themselves an outsider within a small community). But even if that were not the case, being anti-X is also a problem in itself as you are defining yourself against X. Wanting to be "popular" has its problems but wanting to be "anti-popular" is also a problem because in the end it's not yourself. Being the not-popular also has it's own mainstream so it will have the same popular and anti-popular dynamic. So the only ones benefiting are the company and aware "influencers".
  - usernomdeguerre 5y ago
    I'd agree that 'body positivity' is easier to find in this climate, but is it what's being often served on these platforms algorithmically? Is it the default prior to your personal 'profile' being recorded? Does it pump the 'engagement cycle' at a better rate than these 'body negative' cultures? If not, then we're not better off in this era because-- as we've seen-- the engagement cycle is a feedback loop. It amplifies itself. And the qualities of the people it attracts. I personally do not take issue with these cultures existing; however i do take issue with how they are propagated and promoted. These systems don't afford users the full breadth of 'response options' as we would have in real life. You can't even express simple dislike or disagreement, unlike 'love' and 'like', etc. Not to mention the black-box engines of recommendation and discovery of new content in the first place. And though i don't agree that there's ~less body negativity in the aggregate that wouldn't mean that is has less impact. A small culture highly-addicted to body negativity could have larger social impacts than widely-held-but-less-addicted. We see it across many other domains already in our 'American' culture.
- naravara 5y ago
  I think the parasocial element of engagement on Twitter and Instagram have a big effect as well. A cover model in a magazine has an air of inaccessibility. She’s clearly an aspirational figure and held above “normal” people. The way the influencer model works, though, they’re all focused on seeming accessible and relatable. It’s not just that this is a supermodel who is above us all, she’s trying to look like your hot friend. All the products she shills are stuff that’s supposed to make you look like her.
- titzer 5y ago
  > What has happened is we gave everyone internet access so now they can look at pictures of unrealistic bodies all day everywhere they go. Not just that. The entire model is to chase you down, pester you with it, and shove products into your face. Which products? Whoever bids the most!
- notJim 5y ago
  I don't think this is quite it, I think you're underrating the social aspect of it, and the algorithm aspect of it. When I was in high school (livejournal and myspace era), I had a friend group where most of the hanging out occurred IRL. I hung out with the dorks, so there was not a lot of focus on being hot and stuff. And IRL, there aren't algorithms that constantly shove pretty people in your face. Of course you see them around, but you also see tons of normal looking or even ugly people. None of my friends really read Cosmo and stuff, because we were focused on our interests. But in today's era, so much of the social scene is online. And the systems are set up in a way to basically constantly show you pretty people. It is hard to avoid the aspects of it you don't like without also missing out on things you do like.
  - dr_dshiv 5y ago
    > It is hard to avoid the aspects of it you don't like without also missing out on things you do like. Your comment resonates with me. Facebook completely sucks the air out of the room by monopolizing online social networking. The newsfeed makes the world seem so small and vapid. No room for weird.
  - bwship 5y ago
    Yea, I think the other aspect is this isn't just internet. When I was younger, going on the internet meant going to the upstairs bedroom, turning on the computer, waiting for it to boot up, then waiting for AOL to connect, then chatting with people. It would take like 5 minutes of effort. Now, most of the time when I go out, for fun, I just look how many people are hunched over staring and scrolling at their stupid rectangle in their hand all day everyday. It's usually at least 80% of people. It's the social, the algorithm, and the fact that the addiction is sitting in people's hands at all moments of the day and night.
    - nicolas_t 5y ago
      At the risk of sounding like a grumpy old man, I remember 15-20 years ago talking to people next to me in public transports and meeting a lot of people who eventually became friends. Now when I'm in a subway, every one is hunched on their mobile phone, no one is available to engage in conversation, to meet people. They're instead focusing on that tiny bright rectangle. And I can see that I'm also guilty of the same. I'm always either on my kindle or my phone nowadays
- 6gvONxR4sf7o 5y ago
  > now they can look at pictures of unrealistic bodies all day everywhere they go. It's worse than that. Now they will be subjected to those pictures whenever they socialize online, like if 30 years ago every telephone was next to a stack of them. Thankfully, we don't make people sit and stare at cosmo ever time they socialize. We only make people stand and stare at it whenever they buy groceries.
- 908B64B197 5y ago
  > so now they can look at pictures of unrealistic bodies all day everywhere they go In 2018 "obesity prevalence was [...] 21.2% among 12- to 19-year-olds." [0] according to the CDC. That's one out of 5 being obese, not overweight. And it has more than tripled since the 70's [1]. Maybe our definition of "realistic" changed too. [0] https://www.cdc.gov/obesity/data/childhood.html https://www.cdc.gov/obesity/data/childhood.html [1] https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/hestat/obesity_child_15_16/obesity_child_15_16.htm https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/hestat/obesity_child_15_16/obe...
  - lostmsu 5y ago
    Doesn't is show that body shaming might actually work, because the growth means the cause is likely a lifestyle choice rather than something about nature.
huntermeyer 5y ago
We may have to come together as a society and deem these social media apps as being a harm to society, especially the youth. Perhaps even age restrict them like alcohol, gambling, etc.
- fidesomnes 5y ago
  yes. ban them all. it is the only way to think of the children.
- frankish 5y ago
  I lean towards believing that such age restrictions have a counter-effect: causing youth to be less prepared and abuse what is restricted after finally being allowed. For example, more binge drinking in the US compared to other countries with lower age restrictions. I think properly informing/educating youth is a better solution. Treating them as some other entity not worthy of rights will not lead to a productive solution. Found https://www.youthfacts.org/?page_id=92407 https://www.youthfacts.org/?page_id=92407 which has additional supporting arguments in the matter.
- dpflan 5y ago
  The argument of it being “big tobacco” of the present has weight, but social media also has benefit. A cigarette is a simpler villain. A public health initiative could help, but there needs to be societal pressure and legal weight behind the movement. Perhaps COVID misinfo is a potential reason to push against social media in a strongly legal way in the US or even internationally? I’m curious of how this can pan out, but social media is a very powerful tool at scale so many powerful forces will want to keep it around in less regulated fashion.
- muzani 5y ago
  I think they all realize that the real harm comes from misinformation, whether it's fake news, anti-vax, or unrealistic expectations. They've been quite good at self-regulation so far, likely to prevent governments from stepping in.
- Nasrudith 5y ago
  Frankly I think we need to chill the hell out - this has all of the hallmarks of a moral panic. People here are seriously and unironically saying "think of the children" and "we need censorship for society". Good god, did they all get amnesia a few decades ago to forget their youth, and how much of a dumb panic it was? There is a 95% chance a retort will be "But this time is different!" despite the fact it never is.
1vuio0pswjnm7 5y ago
This is more interesting (Instagram response to WSJ, linked to in the article): https://about.instagram.com/blog/announcements/using-research-to-improve-your-experience https://about.instagram.com/blog/announcements/using-researc... "We're increasingly focused on addressing negative social comparison and negative body image. One idea we think has promise is finding opportunities to jump in if we see people dwelling on certain types of content." "From our research, we're starting to understand the types of content some people feel may contribute to negative social comparison, and we're exploring ways to prompt them to look at different topics if they're repeatedly looking at this type of content." Wow, talk about "Big Brother". Facebook/Instagram monitors everything the user looks at, how many times and for how long, and now they will "jump in" and alert the user. "We're watching you and we think you should look at something else." Meanwhile the whole "business model" of Instgram/Facebook is online advertising. Advertising, e.g., in print, is what created these "negative body image" problems in the first place! As they say, in the world of computers, what is old is new again. Originality is rare. Big Tech relies on the same tired, old consumerism ideas, except it operates over the internet. The only thing "futuristic" is the surveillance. Its nothing less than incredible what young people today are tolerating. Are they studying the psychological affects of surveillance on young people.
- mc32 5y ago
  Yeah. As if it's not obvious "engagement" and "influencers" aren't the real problem, no instead, it's "huh, some people actually fall for the ads (body image)". Stop promoting trash and see the problem go away --but so will their main cash cow. That might color their decision-making a bit.
- Tarsul 5y ago
  I'd like to think that by "jumping in" they mean that they change what kind of content the algorithms shows their users... however, I'd guess that no such self-regulation could ever suffice (esp. because it would always be less important than ad money in internal metrics).
  - OJFord 5y ago
i_love_music 5y ago
Such a shame Facebook is considered a prestigious place to work. Sure, you can become a millionaire, but at what cost? Is this what you imagined you would do as a kid interested in math/computers/science?
- rozap 5y ago
  It's a useful tool for hiring though. I wouldn't be able to hire anyone who worked there. At least at my current job, a functioning moral compass is required due to the impact our clients (governments) have on the general population. It's part of our interview process to figure out if someone cares about how their work effects people. Not that the pay scales overlap much anyway.
  - throwaway10895 5y ago
    If Facebook was only full of people without a functioning moral compass then none of this research would have been done in the first place.
    - gilrain 5y ago
      “Not all of them are bad” isn’t a very strong argument against the general heuristic.
      - cybernautique 5y ago
        I have one caveat: people whose immigration to the USA was conditioned on their employment in Silicon Valley. Aside from that, I think _every single person_ that works at Microsoft, Facebook, Google, Twitter, etc. (the uncivil technology corps) is morally bankrupt. Every last one of them is fundamentally compromised by their work.
        vlovich123 5y ago
        How many people with prior experience at these companies have you worked with or know on a personal level that you're drawing this conclusion from?
Redori 5y ago
I'm open to new thoughts on this but this seems like Facebook is being used a scapegoat. What would be a viable solution to this problem?
- sammalloy 5y ago
  Enforcing the Facebook Code of Conduct would be a start. Have you read it?
- moistly 5y ago
  > any evidence this is something intrinsic to Instagram as a platform That the kids are specifically calling out Instagram and not, say, flikr or Twitter, is a big hint. Believe what the kids are telling you.
  - Redori 5y ago
    I'm sure the kids were specifically asked if Instagram was causing any issues for them and I imagine the rest of the internet has a direct impact on their feelings not just Facebook
dr_dshiv 5y ago
I'm concerned that this whole narrative implies that research is the problem. It feels like a continuation of when people were shocked, shocked when it was revealed that Facebook was conducting experiments on people. Well, the issue wasn't the A/B testing exactly, but rather the publishing of the experiments in scientific journals. As you know, public outrage put a stop to that. (The scientific publishing, not the A/B tests) Now, there is outrage over "secret" internal research on the effect of Facebook on mental health. Well, i guess that means Zuck will just gut the entire research domain investigating user wellbeing. Too bad.
- modriano 5y ago
  What would stop the good Facebook employees from just memorializing evidence of the harm Facebook does to girls/society/the elderly/the conspiracy minded/the Rohingya/etc by emailing supervisors about it and then leaking the response or lack of response? Is Facebook just going to fire the good people that still work there?
  - black_puppydog 5y ago
    Errr... Yes?
- burkaman 5y ago
  No, publishing research was not the issue, the issue was experimenting on people without their consent.
  - dr_dshiv 5y ago
    That was part of the journalistic fallacy. A/B testing is experimenting with people without their consent. (And everyone agreed to the terms of service)
    - burkaman 5y ago
      That's true. However, most A/B testing doesn't result in an academic paper, and there are strict ethical rules about academic work based on human subjects. Second, obviously not all A/B tests are the same. If you're testing two different fonts and comparing bounce rates, there are far fewer ethical concerns than if you're intentionally spreading an "emotional contagion" (that's the term Facebook used). And note that if you wanted to publish an academic study based on the font experiment, you would still need informed consent, not just "these people agreed to let us do whatever we want when they signed up 10 years ago, so it's fine".
rvz 5y ago
Did I not say that Facebook is the problem? [0] Let’s sit down and discuss about it right here. How many more of this carnage can you handle from this company as a Facebook user? [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28512252 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28512252
jensensbutton 5y ago
I wonder if they'll start taking a don't ask don't tell (e.g. simply stop doing research) approach due to these leaks. No other social media company is actually studying this so why take all the heat?
- colinmhayes 5y ago
  Seems like the obvious conclusion. This is far from the first time Facebook has faced outrage over research they've done. They shut down their analytics page that the top ten on facebook twitter account was using because that lead to outrage too.
apeace 5y ago
A parallel between Facebook and Big Tobacco had never occurred to me until I read this: > In a move straight out of big tobacco's playbook, Facebook downplayed the negative effects of its product and hid this research from the public and even from members of Congress who specifically asked for it What would our world be like if it were illegal to have a social media account until you were 21 years old? Interesting to think about.
- jetrink 5y ago
  I wonder if this happened, would teenagers would be upset or relieved? There's a This American Life episode[1] in which several teenage girls explain the complex etiquette of Instagram. It sounds stressful, it sounds exhausting, it sounds like a full time job. Right now, anyone who opts out also excludes themselves from a major aspect of school social life. 1. https://www.thisamericanlife.org/573/transcript https://www.thisamericanlife.org/573/transcript
  - jakequade 5y ago
    They would be upset. 100%. Many of them just don't care about the inner workings of the app.
    - disconcision 5y ago
      agreed, it just seems easier to make being on social media mandatory; then the kids would hate it
    - Saptarishi 5y ago
      Maybe that is the downside of the general policy of abstraction that Devs use, that software should be made to look as simple as possible, and all the apparently "unnecessary intricacies"(which could have disastrous effects) should be dumped under the hood.
      - deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
EthOptimist 5y ago
Is it better that they never do such research and just keep their heads in the sand?
gordon_freeman 5y ago
here's the quick summary on Instagram internal research findings from this article: A 2019 presentation slide said: "We make body-image issues worse for one in three teenage girls" Another slide said teenagers blamed Instagram for increased levels of anxiety and depression In 2020, research found 32% of teenage girls surveyed said when they felt bad about their bodies, Instagram made them feel worse Some 13% of UK teenagers and 6% of US users surveyed traced a desire to kill themselves to Instagram
- koboll 5y ago
  Okay. I mean, that's bad, obviously. But is there any evidence this is something intrinsic to Instagram as a platform, rather than the general practice of posting photos on social media? If Instagram didn't exist, surely teens would still be doing it, just somewhere else.
jwommack 5y ago
Didn’t they get in big trouble for this not long ago?

274 points by ColinWright 5y ago

Related recent discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28523688 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28523688

Does anyone remember Cosmopolitan and other like magazines. Teenage body issues and associated anxiety are not new. What has happened is we gave everyone internet access so now they can look at pictures of unrealistic bodies all day everywhere they go. The result is body dysmorphia on steroids.

dhimes 5y ago
Young men are vulnerable to this, too. In fact, it's not unreasonable to think that it doesn't do any good for older men and women, either.
- edoceo 5y ago
  Setting unrealistic expectations and then failing to meet them is bad-feels for all brains.
- 6gvONxR4sf7o 5y ago
  If I recall the FB research from that other thread correctly, it's about half as bad for young men. Instagram is bad for everyone.
mc32 5y ago
It's true, but how many girls bought/could afford Cosmo, Elle, etc. subs? I suspect it wasn't as many as have Insta/Fb accounts --which is world-wide and reaches into every class and society. And given we now know it's severely detrimental to their well-being, I think it deserves serious consideration and requires change. I don't mean to censor people, but we must stop fomenting the image problem on purpose via programming and advertising and social engagement. Facebook knows it's a problem and they should tackle it (as well as any such legacy magazines and the fashion industry in general).
- FpUser 5y ago
  >"Facebook knows it's a problem and they should tackle it" Preface: Not a lover of Facebook and "social media" in general and do not use it as such. However having FB "tackle / promote" way of life I think is totally wrong. It is up to the parents and schools to tech kids that there are more interesting things in the world than this mental masturbation on computer / phone screen watching somebody else's life.
- thaumasiotes 5y ago
  > but how many girls bought/could afford Cosmo, Elle, etc. subs? This is not a particularly relevant question. The number of girls with their own subscription to Cosmopolitan vastly undercounts the number of girls reading Cosmopolitan, which was every girl who was interested. These magazines are stocked in libraries, shared friend to friend, and left in public places. The only thing a subscription gets you is that you can read the new issue a few days earlier than everybody else.
- notyourwork 5y ago
  Where I grew up girls read Cosmo and talked about it even as teenagers. That's my point, it wasn't as prevalent or accessible as it is today. We made it more accessible and hence the problem exacerbated.
agallant 5y ago
As another example "fake news" isn't new either, e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellow_journalism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellow_journalism However, I'd suggest that the new challenge isn't simply scale and omnipresence but algorithmization - modern platforms can tune and target to the level of the individual. In the past, (dis)information had to be broadcast in a far more one-size-fits-most style, perhaps segmented by broad geographic or demographic groups at best.
standardUser 5y ago
I truly don't understands this perspective. It used to be that mass media was a tightly-controlled, walled-off garden. The set number of popular and accessible magazines, tv stations and films suffered from far more centralized control, had far less inclusion in its leadership and staff, and resulted in a hyper-narrow range of acceptable beauty and image standards. It was borderline dystopian. Young people, by and large, could only view media that was part of this monoculture. They were already seeing it all everywhere they went. Now, with just a little looking, people can find an entire universe of body-positive media and communities that simply did not exist in the 80's and 90's. So while there may be more ways to transmit body negativity thanks to the internet, I'd argue there is not more body negativity because we had already maxed it out. It's just as bad as it had been for decades. The difference now is an alternative exists!
- bayindirh 5y ago
  Maybe this body negativity came from inaccessible people, who were famous/connected enough to be on these pages. Now, everyone can do it, and many are around you, accessible. They are your friend's friends or your friends. Moreover, mobile applications and web applications allows you to touch up your appearance. You look and say "I'd be so much beautiful/handsome this way, but I'm not, and never will be". Self criticism inflicts the greatest damage since there's no restraint, no barrier to dampen down to its effects. It's very destructive.
- mc32 5y ago
  I think the problem is people think there isn't an attractive main stream that people look to regardless of microculture (see Kaitlin Jenner for example as someone who finds themselves an outsider within a small community). But even if that were not the case, being anti-X is also a problem in itself as you are defining yourself against X. Wanting to be "popular" has its problems but wanting to be "anti-popular" is also a problem because in the end it's not yourself. Being the not-popular also has it's own mainstream so it will have the same popular and anti-popular dynamic. So the only ones benefiting are the company and aware "influencers".
- usernomdeguerre 5y ago
  I'd agree that 'body positivity' is easier to find in this climate, but is it what's being often served on these platforms algorithmically? Is it the default prior to your personal 'profile' being recorded? Does it pump the 'engagement cycle' at a better rate than these 'body negative' cultures? If not, then we're not better off in this era because-- as we've seen-- the engagement cycle is a feedback loop. It amplifies itself. And the qualities of the people it attracts. I personally do not take issue with these cultures existing; however i do take issue with how they are propagated and promoted. These systems don't afford users the full breadth of 'response options' as we would have in real life. You can't even express simple dislike or disagreement, unlike 'love' and 'like', etc. Not to mention the black-box engines of recommendation and discovery of new content in the first place. And though i don't agree that there's ~less body negativity in the aggregate that wouldn't mean that is has less impact. A small culture highly-addicted to body negativity could have larger social impacts than widely-held-but-less-addicted. We see it across many other domains already in our 'American' culture.
naravara 5y ago
I think the parasocial element of engagement on Twitter and Instagram have a big effect as well. A cover model in a magazine has an air of inaccessibility. She’s clearly an aspirational figure and held above “normal” people. The way the influencer model works, though, they’re all focused on seeming accessible and relatable. It’s not just that this is a supermodel who is above us all, she’s trying to look like your hot friend. All the products she shills are stuff that’s supposed to make you look like her.
titzer 5y ago
> What has happened is we gave everyone internet access so now they can look at pictures of unrealistic bodies all day everywhere they go. Not just that. The entire model is to chase you down, pester you with it, and shove products into your face. Which products? Whoever bids the most!
notJim 5y ago
I don't think this is quite it, I think you're underrating the social aspect of it, and the algorithm aspect of it. When I was in high school (livejournal and myspace era), I had a friend group where most of the hanging out occurred IRL. I hung out with the dorks, so there was not a lot of focus on being hot and stuff. And IRL, there aren't algorithms that constantly shove pretty people in your face. Of course you see them around, but you also see tons of normal looking or even ugly people. None of my friends really read Cosmo and stuff, because we were focused on our interests. But in today's era, so much of the social scene is online. And the systems are set up in a way to basically constantly show you pretty people. It is hard to avoid the aspects of it you don't like without also missing out on things you do like.
- dr_dshiv 5y ago
  > It is hard to avoid the aspects of it you don't like without also missing out on things you do like. Your comment resonates with me. Facebook completely sucks the air out of the room by monopolizing online social networking. The newsfeed makes the world seem so small and vapid. No room for weird.
- bwship 5y ago
  Yea, I think the other aspect is this isn't just internet. When I was younger, going on the internet meant going to the upstairs bedroom, turning on the computer, waiting for it to boot up, then waiting for AOL to connect, then chatting with people. It would take like 5 minutes of effort. Now, most of the time when I go out, for fun, I just look how many people are hunched over staring and scrolling at their stupid rectangle in their hand all day everyday. It's usually at least 80% of people. It's the social, the algorithm, and the fact that the addiction is sitting in people's hands at all moments of the day and night.
  - nicolas_t 5y ago
    At the risk of sounding like a grumpy old man, I remember 15-20 years ago talking to people next to me in public transports and meeting a lot of people who eventually became friends. Now when I'm in a subway, every one is hunched on their mobile phone, no one is available to engage in conversation, to meet people. They're instead focusing on that tiny bright rectangle. And I can see that I'm also guilty of the same. I'm always either on my kindle or my phone nowadays
6gvONxR4sf7o 5y ago
> now they can look at pictures of unrealistic bodies all day everywhere they go. It's worse than that. Now they will be subjected to those pictures whenever they socialize online, like if 30 years ago every telephone was next to a stack of them. Thankfully, we don't make people sit and stare at cosmo ever time they socialize. We only make people stand and stare at it whenever they buy groceries.
908B64B197 5y ago
> so now they can look at pictures of unrealistic bodies all day everywhere they go In 2018 "obesity prevalence was [...] 21.2% among 12- to 19-year-olds." [0] according to the CDC. That's one out of 5 being obese, not overweight. And it has more than tripled since the 70's [1]. Maybe our definition of "realistic" changed too. [0] https://www.cdc.gov/obesity/data/childhood.html https://www.cdc.gov/obesity/data/childhood.html [1] https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/hestat/obesity_child_15_16/obesity_child_15_16.htm https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/hestat/obesity_child_15_16/obe...
- lostmsu 5y ago
  Doesn't is show that body shaming might actually work, because the growth means the cause is likely a lifestyle choice rather than something about nature.

huntermeyer 5y ago

We may have to come together as a society and deem these social media apps as being a harm to society, especially the youth. Perhaps even age restrict them like alcohol, gambling, etc.

fidesomnes 5y ago
yes. ban them all. it is the only way to think of the children.
frankish 5y ago
I lean towards believing that such age restrictions have a counter-effect: causing youth to be less prepared and abuse what is restricted after finally being allowed. For example, more binge drinking in the US compared to other countries with lower age restrictions. I think properly informing/educating youth is a better solution. Treating them as some other entity not worthy of rights will not lead to a productive solution. Found https://www.youthfacts.org/?page_id=92407 https://www.youthfacts.org/?page_id=92407 which has additional supporting arguments in the matter.
dpflan 5y ago
The argument of it being “big tobacco” of the present has weight, but social media also has benefit. A cigarette is a simpler villain. A public health initiative could help, but there needs to be societal pressure and legal weight behind the movement. Perhaps COVID misinfo is a potential reason to push against social media in a strongly legal way in the US or even internationally? I’m curious of how this can pan out, but social media is a very powerful tool at scale so many powerful forces will want to keep it around in less regulated fashion.
muzani 5y ago
I think they all realize that the real harm comes from misinformation, whether it's fake news, anti-vax, or unrealistic expectations. They've been quite good at self-regulation so far, likely to prevent governments from stepping in.
Nasrudith 5y ago
Frankly I think we need to chill the hell out - this has all of the hallmarks of a moral panic. People here are seriously and unironically saying "think of the children" and "we need censorship for society". Good god, did they all get amnesia a few decades ago to forget their youth, and how much of a dumb panic it was? There is a 95% chance a retort will be "But this time is different!" despite the fact it never is.

1vuio0pswjnm7 5y ago

This is more interesting (Instagram response to WSJ, linked to in the article): https://about.instagram.com/blog/announcements/using-research-to-improve-your-experience https://about.instagram.com/blog/announcements/using-researc... "We're increasingly focused on addressing negative social comparison and negative body image. One idea we think has promise is finding opportunities to jump in if we see people dwelling on certain types of content." "From our research, we're starting to understand the types of content some people feel may contribute to negative social comparison, and we're exploring ways to prompt them to look at different topics if they're repeatedly looking at this type of content." Wow, talk about "Big Brother". Facebook/Instagram monitors everything the user looks at, how many times and for how long, and now they will "jump in" and alert the user. "We're watching you and we think you should look at something else." Meanwhile the whole "business model" of Instgram/Facebook is online advertising. Advertising, e.g., in print, is what created these "negative body image" problems in the first place! As they say, in the world of computers, what is old is new again. Originality is rare. Big Tech relies on the same tired, old consumerism ideas, except it operates over the internet. The only thing "futuristic" is the surveillance. Its nothing less than incredible what young people today are tolerating. Are they studying the psychological affects of surveillance on young people.

mc32 5y ago
Yeah. As if it's not obvious "engagement" and "influencers" aren't the real problem, no instead, it's "huh, some people actually fall for the ads (body image)". Stop promoting trash and see the problem go away --but so will their main cash cow. That might color their decision-making a bit.
Tarsul 5y ago
I'd like to think that by "jumping in" they mean that they change what kind of content the algorithms shows their users... however, I'd guess that no such self-regulation could ever suffice (esp. because it would always be less important than ad money in internal metrics).
- OJFord 5y ago

i_love_music 5y ago

Such a shame Facebook is considered a prestigious place to work. Sure, you can become a millionaire, but at what cost? Is this what you imagined you would do as a kid interested in math/computers/science?

rozap 5y ago
It's a useful tool for hiring though. I wouldn't be able to hire anyone who worked there. At least at my current job, a functioning moral compass is required due to the impact our clients (governments) have on the general population. It's part of our interview process to figure out if someone cares about how their work effects people. Not that the pay scales overlap much anyway.
- throwaway10895 5y ago
  If Facebook was only full of people without a functioning moral compass then none of this research would have been done in the first place.
  - gilrain 5y ago
    “Not all of them are bad” isn’t a very strong argument against the general heuristic.
    - cybernautique 5y ago
      I have one caveat: people whose immigration to the USA was conditioned on their employment in Silicon Valley. Aside from that, I think _every single person_ that works at Microsoft, Facebook, Google, Twitter, etc. (the uncivil technology corps) is morally bankrupt. Every last one of them is fundamentally compromised by their work.
      - vlovich123 5y ago
        How many people with prior experience at these companies have you worked with or know on a personal level that you're drawing this conclusion from?

Redori 5y ago

I'm open to new thoughts on this but this seems like Facebook is being used a scapegoat. What would be a viable solution to this problem?

sammalloy 5y ago
Enforcing the Facebook Code of Conduct would be a start. Have you read it?
moistly 5y ago
> any evidence this is something intrinsic to Instagram as a platform That the kids are specifically calling out Instagram and not, say, flikr or Twitter, is a big hint. Believe what the kids are telling you.
- Redori 5y ago
  I'm sure the kids were specifically asked if Instagram was causing any issues for them and I imagine the rest of the internet has a direct impact on their feelings not just Facebook

dr_dshiv 5y ago

I'm concerned that this whole narrative implies that research is the problem. It feels like a continuation of when people were shocked, shocked when it was revealed that Facebook was conducting experiments on people. Well, the issue wasn't the A/B testing exactly, but rather the publishing of the experiments in scientific journals. As you know, public outrage put a stop to that. (The scientific publishing, not the A/B tests) Now, there is outrage over "secret" internal research on the effect of Facebook on mental health. Well, i guess that means Zuck will just gut the entire research domain investigating user wellbeing. Too bad.

modriano 5y ago
What would stop the good Facebook employees from just memorializing evidence of the harm Facebook does to girls/society/the elderly/the conspiracy minded/the Rohingya/etc by emailing supervisors about it and then leaking the response or lack of response? Is Facebook just going to fire the good people that still work there?
- black_puppydog 5y ago
  Errr... Yes?
burkaman 5y ago
No, publishing research was not the issue, the issue was experimenting on people without their consent.
- dr_dshiv 5y ago
  That was part of the journalistic fallacy. A/B testing is experimenting with people without their consent. (And everyone agreed to the terms of service)
  - burkaman 5y ago
    That's true. However, most A/B testing doesn't result in an academic paper, and there are strict ethical rules about academic work based on human subjects. Second, obviously not all A/B tests are the same. If you're testing two different fonts and comparing bounce rates, there are far fewer ethical concerns than if you're intentionally spreading an "emotional contagion" (that's the term Facebook used). And note that if you wanted to publish an academic study based on the font experiment, you would still need informed consent, not just "these people agreed to let us do whatever we want when they signed up 10 years ago, so it's fine".

rvz 5y ago

Did I not say that Facebook is the problem? [0] Let’s sit down and discuss about it right here. How many more of this carnage can you handle from this company as a Facebook user? [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28512252 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28512252

jensensbutton 5y ago

I wonder if they'll start taking a don't ask don't tell (e.g. simply stop doing research) approach due to these leaks. No other social media company is actually studying this so why take all the heat?

colinmhayes 5y ago
Seems like the obvious conclusion. This is far from the first time Facebook has faced outrage over research they've done. They shut down their analytics page that the top ten on facebook twitter account was using because that lead to outrage too.

apeace 5y ago

A parallel between Facebook and Big Tobacco had never occurred to me until I read this: > In a move straight out of big tobacco's playbook, Facebook downplayed the negative effects of its product and hid this research from the public and even from members of Congress who specifically asked for it What would our world be like if it were illegal to have a social media account until you were 21 years old? Interesting to think about.

jetrink 5y ago
I wonder if this happened, would teenagers would be upset or relieved? There's a This American Life episode[1] in which several teenage girls explain the complex etiquette of Instagram. It sounds stressful, it sounds exhausting, it sounds like a full time job. Right now, anyone who opts out also excludes themselves from a major aspect of school social life. 1. https://www.thisamericanlife.org/573/transcript https://www.thisamericanlife.org/573/transcript
- jakequade 5y ago
  They would be upset. 100%. Many of them just don't care about the inner workings of the app.
  - disconcision 5y ago
    agreed, it just seems easier to make being on social media mandatory; then the kids would hate it
  - Saptarishi 5y ago
    Maybe that is the downside of the general policy of abstraction that Devs use, that software should be made to look as simple as possible, and all the apparently "unnecessary intricacies"(which could have disastrous effects) should be dumped under the hood.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]

EthOptimist 5y ago

Is it better that they never do such research and just keep their heads in the sand?

gordon_freeman 5y ago

here's the quick summary on Instagram internal research findings from this article: A 2019 presentation slide said: "We make body-image issues worse for one in three teenage girls" Another slide said teenagers blamed Instagram for increased levels of anxiety and depression In 2020, research found 32% of teenage girls surveyed said when they felt bad about their bodies, Instagram made them feel worse Some 13% of UK teenagers and 6% of US users surveyed traced a desire to kill themselves to Instagram

koboll 5y ago
Okay. I mean, that's bad, obviously. But is there any evidence this is something intrinsic to Instagram as a platform, rather than the general practice of posting photos on social media? If Instagram didn't exist, surely teens would still be doing it, just somewhere else.

jwommack 5y ago

Didn’t they get in big trouble for this not long ago?