6 ms·

I used to think, untill recently, that Facebook was just a tool and all this hatred was overblown. After all, I modulated my use of it just fine. My usage is sp

I used to think, untill recently, that Facebook was just a tool and all this hatred was overblown. After all, I modulated my use of it just fine. My usage is sparse, and I use messenger to talk with people I know, it kept us together. I can see how community and bringing old friends together is precious. But, recently, I realized someone I used to be very close has mental problems. Undiagnosed, but there is no other way I can explain his behaviour to myself. Obsessive behaviour, can only talk about his conspiratorial obsession, erratic, spends most of his time "learning" about a specific conspiracy. And I see how Facebook is exacerbating this. I see how these things are poisoning his mind, fantasies weaved by other mentally ill people. It's just sad, when I thought about it and dawned on me most of those _wild_ conspiracy theories are people that need help feeding each other's sickness. And then I look on my dad's wall, and saw the same hatred and resentment growing, and it scared me, the possibility he might drift even more this way. Now I changed my mind. I think it is harmful and it does induce bad states in people that would otherwise be better, or at least... Surrounded by better support systems. But I still think it's not _just_ Facebook. It's a confluence of factors.

mensetmanusman 5y ago
This happened to a family member, they had undiagnosed schizophrenia and started posting craaaaaazy stuff on YouTube, got a following of fellow like-minded folk that only made things worse until it all exploded into a huge melt down / insane asylum situation. Crazy times.
whimsicalism 5y ago
I think FB is probably bad, but I've also noticed that people have a tendency to blame delusional mental illnesses on whatever a person was going through/up to at the time it onset when it is often more like a timer went off.
- RealityVoid 5y ago
  Yes, most likely the ilness would be there even without Facebook. But the platform enables some destructive behavior while in the real life, I hope, more productive support structures could exist. While mental illness is something you might be biologically predisposed, the outcome can vary wildly with or without support structures and good help. And I think on this end Facebook is profoundly destructive.
  - joe_the_user 5y ago
    Yes, most likely the ilness would be there even without Facebook. But the platform enables some destructive behavior while in the real life, I hope, more productive support structures could exist. But, realistically, is the choice social media or real life? Or is choice between one part of the Internet and another part of the Internet? Which is to say, what are you talking about doing? Ending Facebook in particular? Ending "Social Media" but not say, youtube?
    - verve_rat 5y ago
      So just give up? Do nothing? If we think these things are harmful and those harms outweigh the good, then we should do something. Even if it is just a higher tax rate for Social Media companies to help pay for the clean up of the damage. Sin taxes work, but in this case you'd have to apply them to the real customers, advertisers, somehow.
      - joe_the_user 5y ago
        So just give up? Do nothing? Provide help on a variety of levels (peers, professionals, etc). The idea that mechanical restriction social networking could be the answer is just misguided. And it's not social media that are doing the damage but the interaction of social media and those with existing problems. If we think these things are harmful and those harms outweigh the good, then we should do something. I can see many people saying Facebook is "bad" in some way but often the criticism are completely contradictory. Facebook allows too much free speech or Facebook allows too little free speech. Peonple with both criticism "agree" on "harm" until they have to actually do something, then the absurdity appears. Even if it is just a higher tax rate for Social Media companies to help pay for the clean up of the damage. What's a "social media company"? Any company that let's people communicate? Social media is just blogging, message, forums and so-forth, put together in a roughly unified way. Acting like it's a single thing that can be managed and controlled seems plausible but is impossible if you think about it for a minute.
        5y ago
- retrac 5y ago
  A person's mental illness can have drastically different outcomes depending on who they are surrounded by. Even before Facebook there were plenty of cases where people exploited the emotionally and socially naive or unstable, for their own gain or amusement. I worry social media can enable something similar.
  - joe_the_user 5y ago
    But it's really not social media in particular. It seems pretty clear that when delusions are coming on, a person will seek out those who humor those delusions. If you're talking pre-social media Internet, you'd have the person on BBSes and email lists for whatever they find appealing. And it's worth considering that the situation isn't some mentally ill people and some opportunistic/predatory people. You have a mixture of delusion and predation over a substantial population and you have the ability of people in these groups to seek each other out. Maybe if you shut down usenet and everything past that, you could stop this phenomena, at the expense of more or less shutting down the Internet. But otherwise, the discussions blaming social media in particular for this stuff seem misguided. Social media is about connecting with people you know whereas "socially resonant insanity" or whatever wants to call it, involves find new friends and new facts.
    - verve_rat 5y ago
      But there are healthy connections and unhealthy connections. Is it possible that there might be a way to encourage the healthy ones and discourage the unhealthy ones? Just because social media works the way it does now doesn't mean it has to always work like that. These things are constructed by humans and we can change them if we want. There is nothing intrinsic in Facebook or YouTube that says they must promote "engagement" above all else. Maybe they might make a few less dollars, wouldn't that be sad.
      - joe_the_user 5y ago
        But there are healthy connections and unhealthy connections. Is it possible that there might be a way to encourage the healthy ones and discourage the unhealthy ones? There has been talk of Facebook actually using algorithms to make mental health interventions. The problem is that I don't think that many users find some automatically generated warning credible. Just because social media works the way it does now doesn't mean it has to always work like that. Either you something like a single, state approved connection system or each social media network will serve up anything that users will buy. That's both because of the profit motive and because someone, somewhere thinks X sort of content is totally cool, both factor are in play. What's the plan to counter that?
- glial 5y ago
  Adding fuel to a fire makes it burn hotter, even if it was already there.
kazinator 5y ago
Replace "Facebook" with "language" here ... > And I see how [language] is exacerbating this. I see how these things are poisoning his mind, fantasies weaved by other mentally ill people. It's just sad, when I thought about it and dawned on me most of those _wild_ conspiracy theories are people that need help feeding each other's sickness. > I think it is harmful and [language] does induce bad states in people that would otherwise be better, or at least... Surrounded by better support systems. But I still think it's not _just_ [language]. It's a confluence of factors.
- marticode 5y ago
  Wow this is such a bad faith attempt at exonerating Facebook that I don't know where to even start. No the issue isn't language, the issue is Facebook way of pushing outrage-inducing content and isolating people in bubbles of ever more radicalized content. Spend some time on https://www.reddit.com/r/QAnonCasualties/ https://www.reddit.com/r/QAnonCasualties/ and come back tell us how the problem is "language" and not social medias.
  - labster 5y ago
    But without language, how could they communicate these harmful ideas? People use language to spread hate speech. Even the code base of Facebook is written in a language. This is why we need a doubleplusgood conlang alternative like Newspeak! We can then unfollow crimethink terrorinfo and hatespeak. Facebook is just a plusvictim here of enemy agitprop.
  - kazinator 5y ago
    Facebook is so harmlessly impotent, it has not even managed to get me to create an account. You know, maybe spend less time on QAnon-anything.
    - RealityVoid 5y ago
      The fact it is impotent for you does not mean it is impotent in general. That is my exact point. I have hardly any problem with FB usage, but I see many people dear to me that do. I imagined that this is a problem that will go by itself. That people will inoculate themselves against conspiracy. But now, I'm not so sure.

mensetmanusman 5y ago

This happened to a family member, they had undiagnosed schizophrenia and started posting craaaaaazy stuff on YouTube, got a following of fellow like-minded folk that only made things worse until it all exploded into a huge melt down / insane asylum situation. Crazy times.

whimsicalism 5y ago

I think FB is probably bad, but I've also noticed that people have a tendency to blame delusional mental illnesses on whatever a person was going through/up to at the time it onset when it is often more like a timer went off.

RealityVoid 5y ago
Yes, most likely the ilness would be there even without Facebook. But the platform enables some destructive behavior while in the real life, I hope, more productive support structures could exist. While mental illness is something you might be biologically predisposed, the outcome can vary wildly with or without support structures and good help. And I think on this end Facebook is profoundly destructive.
- joe_the_user 5y ago
  Yes, most likely the ilness would be there even without Facebook. But the platform enables some destructive behavior while in the real life, I hope, more productive support structures could exist. But, realistically, is the choice social media or real life? Or is choice between one part of the Internet and another part of the Internet? Which is to say, what are you talking about doing? Ending Facebook in particular? Ending "Social Media" but not say, youtube?
  - verve_rat 5y ago
    So just give up? Do nothing? If we think these things are harmful and those harms outweigh the good, then we should do something. Even if it is just a higher tax rate for Social Media companies to help pay for the clean up of the damage. Sin taxes work, but in this case you'd have to apply them to the real customers, advertisers, somehow.
    - joe_the_user 5y ago
      So just give up? Do nothing? Provide help on a variety of levels (peers, professionals, etc). The idea that mechanical restriction social networking could be the answer is just misguided. And it's not social media that are doing the damage but the interaction of social media and those with existing problems. If we think these things are harmful and those harms outweigh the good, then we should do something. I can see many people saying Facebook is "bad" in some way but often the criticism are completely contradictory. Facebook allows too much free speech or Facebook allows too little free speech. Peonple with both criticism "agree" on "harm" until they have to actually do something, then the absurdity appears. Even if it is just a higher tax rate for Social Media companies to help pay for the clean up of the damage. What's a "social media company"? Any company that let's people communicate? Social media is just blogging, message, forums and so-forth, put together in a roughly unified way. Acting like it's a single thing that can be managed and controlled seems plausible but is impossible if you think about it for a minute.
      - 5y ago
retrac 5y ago
A person's mental illness can have drastically different outcomes depending on who they are surrounded by. Even before Facebook there were plenty of cases where people exploited the emotionally and socially naive or unstable, for their own gain or amusement. I worry social media can enable something similar.
- joe_the_user 5y ago
  But it's really not social media in particular. It seems pretty clear that when delusions are coming on, a person will seek out those who humor those delusions. If you're talking pre-social media Internet, you'd have the person on BBSes and email lists for whatever they find appealing. And it's worth considering that the situation isn't some mentally ill people and some opportunistic/predatory people. You have a mixture of delusion and predation over a substantial population and you have the ability of people in these groups to seek each other out. Maybe if you shut down usenet and everything past that, you could stop this phenomena, at the expense of more or less shutting down the Internet. But otherwise, the discussions blaming social media in particular for this stuff seem misguided. Social media is about connecting with people you know whereas "socially resonant insanity" or whatever wants to call it, involves find new friends and new facts.
  - verve_rat 5y ago
    But there are healthy connections and unhealthy connections. Is it possible that there might be a way to encourage the healthy ones and discourage the unhealthy ones? Just because social media works the way it does now doesn't mean it has to always work like that. These things are constructed by humans and we can change them if we want. There is nothing intrinsic in Facebook or YouTube that says they must promote "engagement" above all else. Maybe they might make a few less dollars, wouldn't that be sad.
    - joe_the_user 5y ago
      But there are healthy connections and unhealthy connections. Is it possible that there might be a way to encourage the healthy ones and discourage the unhealthy ones? There has been talk of Facebook actually using algorithms to make mental health interventions. The problem is that I don't think that many users find some automatically generated warning credible. Just because social media works the way it does now doesn't mean it has to always work like that. Either you something like a single, state approved connection system or each social media network will serve up anything that users will buy. That's both because of the profit motive and because someone, somewhere thinks X sort of content is totally cool, both factor are in play. What's the plan to counter that?
glial 5y ago
Adding fuel to a fire makes it burn hotter, even if it was already there.

kazinator 5y ago

Replace "Facebook" with "language" here ... > And I see how [language] is exacerbating this. I see how these things are poisoning his mind, fantasies weaved by other mentally ill people. It's just sad, when I thought about it and dawned on me most of those _wild_ conspiracy theories are people that need help feeding each other's sickness. > I think it is harmful and [language] does induce bad states in people that would otherwise be better, or at least... Surrounded by better support systems. But I still think it's not _just_ [language]. It's a confluence of factors.

marticode 5y ago
Wow this is such a bad faith attempt at exonerating Facebook that I don't know where to even start. No the issue isn't language, the issue is Facebook way of pushing outrage-inducing content and isolating people in bubbles of ever more radicalized content. Spend some time on https://www.reddit.com/r/QAnonCasualties/ https://www.reddit.com/r/QAnonCasualties/ and come back tell us how the problem is "language" and not social medias.
- labster 5y ago
  But without language, how could they communicate these harmful ideas? People use language to spread hate speech. Even the code base of Facebook is written in a language. This is why we need a doubleplusgood conlang alternative like Newspeak! We can then unfollow crimethink terrorinfo and hatespeak. Facebook is just a plusvictim here of enemy agitprop.
- kazinator 5y ago
  Facebook is so harmlessly impotent, it has not even managed to get me to create an account. You know, maybe spend less time on QAnon-anything.
  - RealityVoid 5y ago
    The fact it is impotent for you does not mean it is impotent in general. That is my exact point. I have hardly any problem with FB usage, but I see many people dear to me that do. I imagined that this is a problem that will go by itself. That people will inoculate themselves against conspiracy. But now, I'm not so sure.