5 ms·

Facebook's entire business model is creating people addicted to chaos. It has radicalized people, led to suicides, and caused a huge rift in many countries' pol

Facebook's entire business model is creating people addicted to chaos. It has radicalized people, led to suicides, and caused a huge rift in many countries' political ecosystems. That is their business model, it's the only way they make money. Amazon, Google, Microsoft etc have flaws but their business models don't depend on creating conflict.

hermitwriter 5y ago
Source on those claims? Not "the media" but actual sources that haven't been debunked?
- thehappypm 5y ago
  The New York Times article here has many linked sources, and their reporting on the situation has been stellar. https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/03/technology/whistle-blower-facebook-frances-haugen.html https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/03/technology/whistle-blower...
  - hermitwriter 5y ago
    Most of her claims make a gigantic leap to conclusions. I'm asking for a source that shows, for example, a suicide that was _because_ of Facebook. Radicalization trends as another example have been on the rise in the US long before FB or social media, and there are many other countries where FB exists but radicalization is on the decline. There is plenty wrong with FB, but this all seems like trying to pin a root cause to something b/c we need something to blame. Maybe correlation, but I don't see the causation.
    - thehappypm 5y ago
      "Facebook Knows Instagram Is Toxic for Teen Girls, Company Documents Show Its own in-depth research shows a significant teen mental-health issue that Facebook plays down in public" https://www.wsj.com/articles/facebook-knows-instagram-is-toxic-for-teen-girls-company-documents-show-11631620739?mod=article_inline https://www.wsj.com/articles/facebook-knows-instagram-is-tox... Their own research shows they know the negative impacts of their platform.
      - deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
      - hermitwriter 5y ago
        In said study, Facebook acknowledges problems with the study itself as do other researchers without a dog in the fight. Let's see an independent study show the same thing.
        theduder99 5y ago
        an independent study with access to insider information..k
        hermitwriter 5y ago
        An independent study of the effects of Social Media (instagram, FB, TikTok, whatever) needs no insider information. We're studying the effect, not the company. Hypothesis: Instagram causes teenage girls to have a lower opinion of their bodies than they would otherwise have without Instagram. Study: Have 2 cohorts of teenage girls rate their appearance or happiness with their bodies. The two cohorts are separated by those who use Instagram and those who don't. Run independently, of course. This study is incredibly flawed (like the original) b/c it is self-reported happiness (incredibly subjective, ephemeral, and prone to bias) and subject to the same issues as all qualitative research. The only way to get any semblance of reliable data is with a _large_ set in each cohort. Even then, the data raises more questions than answers it provides. But, you could say after this study whether 'it seems Instagram may be harmful.' It is also flawed for other reasons but you get the point. You don't need insider info to study the effect of something.
        genewitch 5y ago
        No need for this study, it's been shown that teen and beauty magazines increase stress markers and if you're already depressed they're not helping.
        5y ago
    - mbesto 5y ago
      > a suicide that was _because_ of Facebook. I actually know of no study that conclusively attributes a cause to suicide, so this point is moot in both directions. Do you?
      - hermitwriter 5y ago
        Good point. I do think then we should be careful then attributing _to_ something without proof.
  - sabas123 5y ago
    I agree with hermitwriter here. Currently I'm not at all convinced somebody can claim that all of these negative effects wouldn't have existed if we had a morally correct social media platform instead.
- takeda 5y ago
  I'm assuming you have been in comma in the past few years?
  - hermitwriter 5y ago
    Nope. I just don't believe hyped up spin; especially when the deliverers of the content are biased. I like research, and facts.
nickthegreek 5y ago
It’s not the only way they can make money, it’s how they are choosing to maximize profits.
- thehappypm 5y ago
  That's probably the most damning thing. They know they could promote more positive content and kill doom scrolling with the flip of a switch. But that would probably reduce their session length and reduce the number of ad impressions to sell.
  - goatlover 5y ago
    And the media could do the same thing, but they know bad news sells. Why is FB fundamentally different from the rest of media?
    - genewitch 5y ago
      CNN isn't spying on my browsing habits. If I don't want to watch ABC I don't have to. Back in the days of AOL you could use Juno or whatever to send and receive email from AOL users if you weren't interested in the platform. FB, Google, cloudflare, and a few others control way too much information flow, globally. CNN only gets like 2 million viewers on a good day.
      - goatlover 5y ago
        And what is the combined viewership for CNN, Fox News, NBC, AM Talk Radio, NY Times, Sky News, NPR, BBC, Al Jazeera, etc?
    - thehappypm 5y ago
      Media is held to journalistic standards. Uncle Abe from Scranton is not.
      - goatlover 5y ago
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
james_in_the_uk 5y ago
I think that’s a little unfair. As an idea FB genuinely revolutionised person to person communications, not all for the worse. Remember what it was like before to stay connected with family and friends remotely. Swapping email addresses, posting your holiday snaps on your shared hosting server space running some cr*p Perl or PHP scripts. And that was progress. My thoughts towards Facebook are complicated. They certainly have some issues but I am not sure that makes their core mission inherently evil.
- thehappypm 5y ago
  I think Facebook has done a lot of good, like being able to talk to my distant relatives. I think the news feed concept is super entertaining and a great way to keep in touch with friends. Facebook intentionally tuned their algorithm to maximize revenue. Not happiness or customer satisfaction. Just money. At great societal cost.

hermitwriter 5y ago

Source on those claims? Not "the media" but actual sources that haven't been debunked?

thehappypm 5y ago
The New York Times article here has many linked sources, and their reporting on the situation has been stellar. https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/03/technology/whistle-blower-facebook-frances-haugen.html https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/03/technology/whistle-blower...
- hermitwriter 5y ago
  Most of her claims make a gigantic leap to conclusions. I'm asking for a source that shows, for example, a suicide that was _because_ of Facebook. Radicalization trends as another example have been on the rise in the US long before FB or social media, and there are many other countries where FB exists but radicalization is on the decline. There is plenty wrong with FB, but this all seems like trying to pin a root cause to something b/c we need something to blame. Maybe correlation, but I don't see the causation.
  - thehappypm 5y ago
    "Facebook Knows Instagram Is Toxic for Teen Girls, Company Documents Show Its own in-depth research shows a significant teen mental-health issue that Facebook plays down in public" https://www.wsj.com/articles/facebook-knows-instagram-is-toxic-for-teen-girls-company-documents-show-11631620739?mod=article_inline https://www.wsj.com/articles/facebook-knows-instagram-is-tox... Their own research shows they know the negative impacts of their platform.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
    - hermitwriter 5y ago
      In said study, Facebook acknowledges problems with the study itself as do other researchers without a dog in the fight. Let's see an independent study show the same thing.
      - theduder99 5y ago
        an independent study with access to insider information..k
        hermitwriter 5y ago
        An independent study of the effects of Social Media (instagram, FB, TikTok, whatever) needs no insider information. We're studying the effect, not the company. Hypothesis: Instagram causes teenage girls to have a lower opinion of their bodies than they would otherwise have without Instagram. Study: Have 2 cohorts of teenage girls rate their appearance or happiness with their bodies. The two cohorts are separated by those who use Instagram and those who don't. Run independently, of course. This study is incredibly flawed (like the original) b/c it is self-reported happiness (incredibly subjective, ephemeral, and prone to bias) and subject to the same issues as all qualitative research. The only way to get any semblance of reliable data is with a _large_ set in each cohort. Even then, the data raises more questions than answers it provides. But, you could say after this study whether 'it seems Instagram may be harmful.' It is also flawed for other reasons but you get the point. You don't need insider info to study the effect of something.
        genewitch 5y ago
        No need for this study, it's been shown that teen and beauty magazines increase stress markers and if you're already depressed they're not helping.
        5y ago
  - mbesto 5y ago
    > a suicide that was _because_ of Facebook. I actually know of no study that conclusively attributes a cause to suicide, so this point is moot in both directions. Do you?
    - hermitwriter 5y ago
      Good point. I do think then we should be careful then attributing _to_ something without proof.
- sabas123 5y ago
  I agree with hermitwriter here. Currently I'm not at all convinced somebody can claim that all of these negative effects wouldn't have existed if we had a morally correct social media platform instead.
takeda 5y ago
I'm assuming you have been in comma in the past few years?
- hermitwriter 5y ago
  Nope. I just don't believe hyped up spin; especially when the deliverers of the content are biased. I like research, and facts.

nickthegreek 5y ago

It’s not the only way they can make money, it’s how they are choosing to maximize profits.

thehappypm 5y ago
That's probably the most damning thing. They know they could promote more positive content and kill doom scrolling with the flip of a switch. But that would probably reduce their session length and reduce the number of ad impressions to sell.
- goatlover 5y ago
  And the media could do the same thing, but they know bad news sells. Why is FB fundamentally different from the rest of media?
  - genewitch 5y ago
    CNN isn't spying on my browsing habits. If I don't want to watch ABC I don't have to. Back in the days of AOL you could use Juno or whatever to send and receive email from AOL users if you weren't interested in the platform. FB, Google, cloudflare, and a few others control way too much information flow, globally. CNN only gets like 2 million viewers on a good day.
    - goatlover 5y ago
      And what is the combined viewership for CNN, Fox News, NBC, AM Talk Radio, NY Times, Sky News, NPR, BBC, Al Jazeera, etc?
  - thehappypm 5y ago
    Media is held to journalistic standards. Uncle Abe from Scranton is not.
    - goatlover 5y ago

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

james_in_the_uk 5y ago

I think that’s a little unfair. As an idea FB genuinely revolutionised person to person communications, not all for the worse. Remember what it was like before to stay connected with family and friends remotely. Swapping email addresses, posting your holiday snaps on your shared hosting server space running some cr*p Perl or PHP scripts. And that was progress. My thoughts towards Facebook are complicated. They certainly have some issues but I am not sure that makes their core mission inherently evil.

thehappypm 5y ago
I think Facebook has done a lot of good, like being able to talk to my distant relatives. I think the news feed concept is super entertaining and a great way to keep in touch with friends. Facebook intentionally tuned their algorithm to maximize revenue. Not happiness or customer satisfaction. Just money. At great societal cost.