5 ms·

> Using Facebook has been scientifically demonstrated to cause depression Not to say that this line is wrong, but that the evidence for this claim is far from

> Using Facebook has been scientifically demonstrated to cause depression Not to say that this line is wrong, but that the evidence for this claim is far from conclusive. The findings from such studies are mixed, partly due to differences in how variables are operationalised. I believe your interaction with digital technology can be a main driver of depression, but not in the way it's being framed. My psychologist (back when I was suicidal and in a strong depressive episode) told me, that I should have at least 20 minutes of face-to-face conversation to day. That I should go outside and find meaningful contacts, goals, and sense in life. I believe that a lot of people, who sit in front of their computer the whole day are missing this. It doesn't matter what medium you consume as much as what you're actually missing. The few girls which I met during therapy were mainly on tumblr, discord, instagram. I didn't use fb either. Welp, even HN didn't keep depression away! Having at least a 20 minute long face-to-face convo per day was honestly a great helper, besides the full-time therapy to stop my head thinking, and pills, of course. Just my two cents to this line. I agree with the other comments about non-chronological feeds being lousy. The article is really trying to push negative emotion towards facebook.

alex_young 4y ago
The "it's inconclusive" line is being pushed by FB pretty hard right now, and it feels pretty similar to the smoking industry telling people there's no proof cigarettes cause cancer 20 years ago. Obviously something is causing marked increases in teen depression and suicide attempts over the same period as the move to 24/7 social media. Sure, it's possible there are other factors, but isn't it obvious that social media is at least playing a significant role? https://www.npr.org/2021/05/18/990234501/facebook-calls-links-to-depression-inconclusive-these-researchers-disagree https://www.npr.org/2021/05/18/990234501/facebook-calls-link...
- thrown_22 4y ago
  Just because something is doesn't mean it's facebook. Especially since basically no teens use facebook. Your other example also dates you pretty hard. The surgeon general report of 1964 said conclusively that cigarettes cause lung cancer and other diseases. 1964 is somewhat longer ago than 20 years. In short: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BGrfhsxxmdE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BGrfhsxxmdE
  - dhosek 4y ago
    But the tobacco companies insisted to the contrary and funded their own “studies” to the contrary well after 1964.
    - thrown_22 4y ago
      They did not. The studies which cast doubt on smoking cancer link were all done in the 1950s: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3490543/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3490543/ The next 30 years to the 1990s were a fight to muddy the science over second hand smoke which was a different issue.
      - pdimitar 4y ago
        Your nitpicking doesn't further the discussion. It's a fact that they did their best to mislead the public for the longest possible time. Does it truly matter how exactly? You can have more than one gun to shoot with, you know.
        deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
      - switchbak 4y ago
        > In a 1971 television interview, the president of Philip Morris denied the health risks that pregnant women and their babies face, saying that “It’s true that babies born from women who smoke are smaller, but they are just as healthy as the babies born to women who do not smoke. Some women would prefer to have smaller babies.” [1] The tobacco industry is well known to have distorted the truth for many years after the 50's, and the above quote is just one of many that are very easy to find. Yours seems a tough position to defend. 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Cullman https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Cullman
        thrown_22 4y ago
- fshbbdssbbgdd 4y ago
  I’d be interested in hearing a comparison of how researching go about establishing causality for a smoking-cancer link vs. a Facebook-depression link. Obviously, it’s hard to do a proper randomized controlled trial in both cases. Anyone know more about what kinds of methods can be used? I think it would be useful to help this conversation be a little more fact-based and less ideological.
- thaumasiotes 4y ago
  > Obviously something is causing marked increases in teen depression and suicide attempts over the same period as the move to 24/7 social media. When in-person school was suspended over covid, the teen suicide rate dropped dramatically.
  - pessimizer 4y ago
    But school has other important benefits.
    - thaumasiotes 4y ago
      That's not obvious. If children's opinions counted, it might well be a minority position. And if we're willing to assume that school has important benefits, the same is obviously true of Facebook.
  - purpleblue 4y ago
    You mean suicide rates skyrocketed during the Pandemic.
    - watwut 4y ago
      They did not. That is something that simply did not happened.
  - germinalphrase 4y ago
    My quick searching seems to indicate that rates were flat or somewhat decreased, but not dramatically. As a high school teacher, I wouldn’t be surprised to hear that though. My students who struggle the hardest often find school to be a significant, additional source of stress. The thinking can also become circular: I’m struggling, and don’t have the capacity to perform (even if I want to do well and have in the past), and that means I’m incapable of performing well, and so I’m struggling more, and so I lack the capacity to…
    - thaumasiotes 4y ago
- knaik94 4y ago
  I don't know how fair it is to say facebook is playing a major role when most of the content consumed on facebook is no longer what your immediate friends post from their personal lives. At one point in time, I would agree that the culture of comparing yourself to others' success lead to dark thoughts. But now there's so much on facebook, it's hard to pin down a specific cause. Is it the fake news, the fear of missing out, the articles about global warming, the economic depression, or seeing posts about covid deaths? I would argue facebook is not even the main demographic of teenagers anymore. Facebook is full of millenial+. Younger generations are on tiktok and youtube. Facebook is not social media, instagram and whatsapp and facebook together could arguably be a larger influence but those three still don't make up a majority of social media. Facebook and social media and the internet itself can be used to escape real life problems. Certain psychologist have already generalized an addiction to encompass all of internet and computer use. The reality is that internet and computer and social media are all tools. The actual issue is some people's unhealthy mechanisms for coping with difficult struggles in life. This generation happened to live in the time great technological advancements. It's not obvious when you dig deeper into the relationship.
- germinalphrase 4y ago
  I mean, if the answer does echo the above position that the problem is unhealthy time allotment (fb/insta/whatever is too good at causing teens to spend time on their platform rather doing other things that are healthy for them) that’s pretty terrible news for a company that will do almost anything but reduce engagement time.
hn_throwaway_99 4y ago
I totally agree with everything you've written, but would just point out that Facebook (and other social media companies) pay huge amounts of money to some of the smartest people in the world whose sole goal is to get you to scroll, scroll, scroll. Yes, individuals can choose their relationship to technology, but let's not let the drug pushers off the hook.
- themacguffinman 4y ago
  So what? McDonalds also pays huge amounts of money to optimize their food. McDonalds isn't liable in any way when someone ruins their life with Big Macs. Facebook, like literally every business on the planet, focuses a lot of time & money on getting people to use their product as much as possible. What hook do you not want to let them off that doesn't also apply to literally everyone else? The only exception to date has been narcotics that create physical dependencies, and even then we broadly allow alcohol and nicotine, just with age limits.
  - jerojero 4y ago
    Just because something is legal doesn't mean it's ethical. I think this is more of an ethical issue than a legal one, slowly our laws tend to move towards ethical boundries we consider acceptable. What you describe as physical dependency is nothing more but your brain changing in response to the drug that's being administered to it. Not very surprisingly a drug could also be digital or artificial for example gambling. I think most societies have agreed that because people of the 0 to 18 (give or take a few years, 16 to 21 tends to be the upper range) are particularly vulnerable due to these being formative years that certain actions and substances need to be outlawed until these people can be legally responsible for making these actions. And companies that deal in these industries should be liable if: 1. They know about the problem 2. They choose to continue. 3. They've got no problem targeting vulnerable individuals. Of course this ends up being a back and forth between our legal systems and the different industries. But why should we simply accept the situation where these companies are purposefully trying to get people addicted to their services and products regardless of the consequences? Clearly there are ethical mishaps that our current societal system is not processing efficiently.
googlryas 4y ago
Even if we took it as conclusive, OP is far overstating the research by making it seem like "If you use facebook, you will become depressed". It would be like saying "Using a swimming pool has been scientifically demonstrated to cause drownings". Yes, you can drown a swimming pool, and that is tragic, but you really need to talk about the rate that these bad things happen.
rr808 4y ago
Yeah its depressing watching all the stupid political memes, less so the envy.
acrobatsunfish 4y ago
"Comparison of the theif of joy." What better way to compare then hd photos on Facebook, Instagram, etc
iepathos 4y ago
The more disturbing part of the internal studies Facebook did on this is that they found pushing content to their users' feeds that caused more depression and anxiety was good for Facebook's numbers because depressed and anxious people stay on Facebook more. So, Facebook made a calculated decision to prioritize depressing and anxiety causing content rather than more uplifting and alternative content which would make users not stay on Facebook as much.
pdimitar 4y ago
> It doesn't matter what medium you consume as much as what you're actually missing. Disagreed. Both matter. Deliberately triggering people is bad for them. You have to be very disingenuous to deny it.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

alex_young 4y ago

The "it's inconclusive" line is being pushed by FB pretty hard right now, and it feels pretty similar to the smoking industry telling people there's no proof cigarettes cause cancer 20 years ago. Obviously something is causing marked increases in teen depression and suicide attempts over the same period as the move to 24/7 social media. Sure, it's possible there are other factors, but isn't it obvious that social media is at least playing a significant role? https://www.npr.org/2021/05/18/990234501/facebook-calls-links-to-depression-inconclusive-these-researchers-disagree https://www.npr.org/2021/05/18/990234501/facebook-calls-link...

thrown_22 4y ago
Just because something is doesn't mean it's facebook. Especially since basically no teens use facebook. Your other example also dates you pretty hard. The surgeon general report of 1964 said conclusively that cigarettes cause lung cancer and other diseases. 1964 is somewhat longer ago than 20 years. In short: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BGrfhsxxmdE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BGrfhsxxmdE
- dhosek 4y ago
  But the tobacco companies insisted to the contrary and funded their own “studies” to the contrary well after 1964.
  - thrown_22 4y ago
    They did not. The studies which cast doubt on smoking cancer link were all done in the 1950s: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3490543/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3490543/ The next 30 years to the 1990s were a fight to muddy the science over second hand smoke which was a different issue.
    - pdimitar 4y ago
      Your nitpicking doesn't further the discussion. It's a fact that they did their best to mislead the public for the longest possible time. Does it truly matter how exactly? You can have more than one gun to shoot with, you know.
      - deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
    - switchbak 4y ago
      > In a 1971 television interview, the president of Philip Morris denied the health risks that pregnant women and their babies face, saying that “It’s true that babies born from women who smoke are smaller, but they are just as healthy as the babies born to women who do not smoke. Some women would prefer to have smaller babies.” [1] The tobacco industry is well known to have distorted the truth for many years after the 50's, and the above quote is just one of many that are very easy to find. Yours seems a tough position to defend. 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Cullman https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Cullman
      - thrown_22 4y ago
fshbbdssbbgdd 4y ago
I’d be interested in hearing a comparison of how researching go about establishing causality for a smoking-cancer link vs. a Facebook-depression link. Obviously, it’s hard to do a proper randomized controlled trial in both cases. Anyone know more about what kinds of methods can be used? I think it would be useful to help this conversation be a little more fact-based and less ideological.
thaumasiotes 4y ago
> Obviously something is causing marked increases in teen depression and suicide attempts over the same period as the move to 24/7 social media. When in-person school was suspended over covid, the teen suicide rate dropped dramatically.
- pessimizer 4y ago
  But school has other important benefits.
  - thaumasiotes 4y ago
    That's not obvious. If children's opinions counted, it might well be a minority position. And if we're willing to assume that school has important benefits, the same is obviously true of Facebook.
- purpleblue 4y ago
  You mean suicide rates skyrocketed during the Pandemic.
  - watwut 4y ago
    They did not. That is something that simply did not happened.
- germinalphrase 4y ago
  My quick searching seems to indicate that rates were flat or somewhat decreased, but not dramatically. As a high school teacher, I wouldn’t be surprised to hear that though. My students who struggle the hardest often find school to be a significant, additional source of stress. The thinking can also become circular: I’m struggling, and don’t have the capacity to perform (even if I want to do well and have in the past), and that means I’m incapable of performing well, and so I’m struggling more, and so I lack the capacity to…
  - thaumasiotes 4y ago
knaik94 4y ago
I don't know how fair it is to say facebook is playing a major role when most of the content consumed on facebook is no longer what your immediate friends post from their personal lives. At one point in time, I would agree that the culture of comparing yourself to others' success lead to dark thoughts. But now there's so much on facebook, it's hard to pin down a specific cause. Is it the fake news, the fear of missing out, the articles about global warming, the economic depression, or seeing posts about covid deaths? I would argue facebook is not even the main demographic of teenagers anymore. Facebook is full of millenial+. Younger generations are on tiktok and youtube. Facebook is not social media, instagram and whatsapp and facebook together could arguably be a larger influence but those three still don't make up a majority of social media. Facebook and social media and the internet itself can be used to escape real life problems. Certain psychologist have already generalized an addiction to encompass all of internet and computer use. The reality is that internet and computer and social media are all tools. The actual issue is some people's unhealthy mechanisms for coping with difficult struggles in life. This generation happened to live in the time great technological advancements. It's not obvious when you dig deeper into the relationship.
germinalphrase 4y ago
I mean, if the answer does echo the above position that the problem is unhealthy time allotment (fb/insta/whatever is too good at causing teens to spend time on their platform rather doing other things that are healthy for them) that’s pretty terrible news for a company that will do almost anything but reduce engagement time.

hn_throwaway_99 4y ago

I totally agree with everything you've written, but would just point out that Facebook (and other social media companies) pay huge amounts of money to some of the smartest people in the world whose sole goal is to get you to scroll, scroll, scroll. Yes, individuals can choose their relationship to technology, but let's not let the drug pushers off the hook.

themacguffinman 4y ago
So what? McDonalds also pays huge amounts of money to optimize their food. McDonalds isn't liable in any way when someone ruins their life with Big Macs. Facebook, like literally every business on the planet, focuses a lot of time & money on getting people to use their product as much as possible. What hook do you not want to let them off that doesn't also apply to literally everyone else? The only exception to date has been narcotics that create physical dependencies, and even then we broadly allow alcohol and nicotine, just with age limits.
- jerojero 4y ago
  Just because something is legal doesn't mean it's ethical. I think this is more of an ethical issue than a legal one, slowly our laws tend to move towards ethical boundries we consider acceptable. What you describe as physical dependency is nothing more but your brain changing in response to the drug that's being administered to it. Not very surprisingly a drug could also be digital or artificial for example gambling. I think most societies have agreed that because people of the 0 to 18 (give or take a few years, 16 to 21 tends to be the upper range) are particularly vulnerable due to these being formative years that certain actions and substances need to be outlawed until these people can be legally responsible for making these actions. And companies that deal in these industries should be liable if: 1. They know about the problem 2. They choose to continue. 3. They've got no problem targeting vulnerable individuals. Of course this ends up being a back and forth between our legal systems and the different industries. But why should we simply accept the situation where these companies are purposefully trying to get people addicted to their services and products regardless of the consequences? Clearly there are ethical mishaps that our current societal system is not processing efficiently.

googlryas 4y ago

Even if we took it as conclusive, OP is far overstating the research by making it seem like "If you use facebook, you will become depressed". It would be like saying "Using a swimming pool has been scientifically demonstrated to cause drownings". Yes, you can drown a swimming pool, and that is tragic, but you really need to talk about the rate that these bad things happen.

rr808 4y ago

Yeah its depressing watching all the stupid political memes, less so the envy.

acrobatsunfish 4y ago

"Comparison of the theif of joy." What better way to compare then hd photos on Facebook, Instagram, etc

iepathos 4y ago

The more disturbing part of the internal studies Facebook did on this is that they found pushing content to their users' feeds that caused more depression and anxiety was good for Facebook's numbers because depressed and anxious people stay on Facebook more. So, Facebook made a calculated decision to prioritize depressing and anxiety causing content rather than more uplifting and alternative content which would make users not stay on Facebook as much.

pdimitar 4y ago

> It doesn't matter what medium you consume as much as what you're actually missing. Disagreed. Both matter. Deliberately triggering people is bad for them. You have to be very disingenuous to deny it.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]