3 ms·

Facebook is the only major platform that studied its impact on mental health, so it's the only one that can be punished for what they found.

adolph 5y ago
A policeman sees a drunk man searching for something under a streetlight and asks what the drunk has lost. He says he lost his keys and they both look under the streetlight together. After a few minutes the policeman asks if he is sure he lost them here, and the drunk replies, no, and that he lost them in the park. The policeman asks why he is searching here, and the drunk replies, "this is where the light is". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streetlight_effect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streetlight_effect
BbzzbB 5y ago
Snap, Twitter, TikTok, YouTube, [...] execs scrambling to lock or destroy their mental health research programs. I'm obviously not the only person saying this, and I don't want to brush Facebook and Instagram issues under the rug, but I fear the series of articles that arose from this whistle-blowing has created all sorts of twisted incentives for every player whose digital product can be abused. What's the upside of making such research looking into negative effects if, when leaked, (1) only the negatives is headlined and presented, (2) the positives are ignored and (3) no acknowledgment of the research existing in the first place is made? I'm conflicted myself writing this, especially #3 as it may (I'm not informed enough to have a strong opinion) be akin to historic examples of tobacco and petroleum industries ignoring their R&D, but #1 and #2 seem pretty clear. Why are these researchers not addressing the industry at large, if only as a bullet point/segment? It seems like scapegoating while these issues are widespread and no company/executive will position itself to be the next scapegoat in line to be ousted. Research on FB-Insta could be useful to expand to the rest of the industry, but why would they be inclined to respond to this piece where they are made out to be as the nefarious actor when it comes children's health?

adolph 5y ago

A policeman sees a drunk man searching for something under a streetlight and asks what the drunk has lost. He says he lost his keys and they both look under the streetlight together. After a few minutes the policeman asks if he is sure he lost them here, and the drunk replies, no, and that he lost them in the park. The policeman asks why he is searching here, and the drunk replies, "this is where the light is". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streetlight_effect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streetlight_effect

BbzzbB 5y ago

Snap, Twitter, TikTok, YouTube, [...] execs scrambling to lock or destroy their mental health research programs. I'm obviously not the only person saying this, and I don't want to brush Facebook and Instagram issues under the rug, but I fear the series of articles that arose from this whistle-blowing has created all sorts of twisted incentives for every player whose digital product can be abused. What's the upside of making such research looking into negative effects if, when leaked, (1) only the negatives is headlined and presented, (2) the positives are ignored and (3) no acknowledgment of the research existing in the first place is made? I'm conflicted myself writing this, especially #3 as it may (I'm not informed enough to have a strong opinion) be akin to historic examples of tobacco and petroleum industries ignoring their R&D, but #1 and #2 seem pretty clear. Why are these researchers not addressing the industry at large, if only as a bullet point/segment? It seems like scapegoating while these issues are widespread and no company/executive will position itself to be the next scapegoat in line to be ousted. Research on FB-Insta could be useful to expand to the rest of the industry, but why would they be inclined to respond to this piece where they are made out to be as the nefarious actor when it comes children's health?