3 ms·
> your rebuttal depends on the premise that people don't view facebook as harmful. No it doesn't. It depends on the fact that I don't know the opinions of othe
by jedimastert 5y ago
> your rebuttal depends on the premise that people don't view facebook as harmful.
No it doesn't. It depends on the fact that I don't know the opinions of other people at all. But I can infer that the selection biases of "registered voters" (which I think is a far bigger confounding factor than anyone is giving it credit for), and self-selection make it too difficult to extrapolate to the population of US citizens.
- ImPostingOnHN 5y agoI also don't know. So I have to look to the evidence. On the no-harm side, I see nothing. On the harm side, I see a study about which someone has raised some concerns. I understand you have concerns about the study design, but I'm not confident that they affect the outcome in such a way that the study provided zero evidence for Facebook being viewed as harmful. Is there a study which doesn't run into the same concerns which says the opposite of this one?
- jedimastert 5y agoI think it's important to note that the study is not about whether or not Facebook was harmful, but whether the average person thinks Facebook is harmful (or rather if the average registered voter who would volunteer to spend 20 minutes on a survey on Facebook thinks Facebook is harmful). It was just a survey of public opinion. I personally also think Facebook is harmful.