8 ms·

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 produc

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.
    - RealityVoid 5y ago
      I think you have very good points, and, honestly, I have no answer for them. I see the tension between too much/too little censorship. And obviously, the blame is not only on FB, there is an ecosystem of websites that feed into each other. I mentioned Youtube as also having had a big role in this. I also see their usefulness. But the damage they are doing needs to be tackled somehow. And me not having a solution does not mean there is none. Surely other, smarter people can find one. One thing to tackle would be the algorithm and the way it feeds into this addiction. It obviously is good for FB but bad for the user. And absolutely no one says... "Gee, I so love that FB is addictive." You could get the benefits of FB without the feed that pulls you the most it can to stay. FB could also downrank _all_ political or polarizing content (hah, came to agree with HN on this, incredible). Obviously, FB is not a place to have reasoned discussion about politics and news and things of consistence. So downgrade them in the algo, and then the self-enforcing feedback loop should tone down in this area. It's a tough problem but one that exists and cannot be ignored.

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.
  - RealityVoid 5y ago
    I think you have very good points, and, honestly, I have no answer for them. I see the tension between too much/too little censorship. And obviously, the blame is not only on FB, there is an ecosystem of websites that feed into each other. I mentioned Youtube as also having had a big role in this. I also see their usefulness. But the damage they are doing needs to be tackled somehow. And me not having a solution does not mean there is none. Surely other, smarter people can find one. One thing to tackle would be the algorithm and the way it feeds into this addiction. It obviously is good for FB but bad for the user. And absolutely no one says... "Gee, I so love that FB is addictive." You could get the benefits of FB without the feed that pulls you the most it can to stay. FB could also downrank _all_ political or polarizing content (hah, came to agree with HN on this, incredible). Obviously, FB is not a place to have reasoned discussion about politics and news and things of consistence. So downgrade them in the algo, and then the self-enforcing feedback loop should tone down in this area. It's a tough problem but one that exists and cannot be ignored.