3 ms·

2.4M person study: Internet use boosts, not hurts, well being

74 points by gumby 2y ago

Nicholas_C 2y ago
>The team found that, on average, people who had access to the Internet scored 8% higher on measures of life satisfaction, positive experiences and contentment with their social life, compared with people who lacked web access. The current HN title ("2.4M person study: Internet use boosts, not hurts, well being") seems a bit of a stretch with regard to causation.
- gumby 2y ago
  Because the title itself was clickbaity (“surprise effect”) I tried to summarize both title and subtitle. I think I did ok in that regard, but as you say the two sentences could themselves overstate things. But I figured any more edit would get into the discouraged editorializing
  - michelsedgh 2y ago
    So it was two clickbaity titles and you summarized them both into one very more clickbaity title. Good job
    - gumby 2y ago
      Thank you. It seemed the most consistent with the HN title “rules”.
HankB99 2y ago
> However, women aged 15–24 who reported having used the Internet in the past week were, on average, less happy with the place they live, compared with people who didn’t use the web. I was wondering about the overall effect for young folk and women in particular. It seems like the effect is fairly narrow and not what I would expect. I also wonder if the effects from substantial social media interaction could be teased out.
- Verdex 2y ago
  >I also wonder if the effects from substantial social media interaction could be teased out. Yeah, this is what I was thinking as well. The internet absolutely has a positive effect on my life. Finding out which store I need to go to, how to do simple home repairs, how to start a garden, maps, ordering groceries (we've got 4 young children; grocery pickup is a life saver). And on the other hand, social media is terrible for me. There's just something about doom scrolling that's hard to give up because it's the perfect way to kill dead time.
  - bombcar 2y ago
    And I bet if we asked you how the Internet was for you right after you ordered groceries, you'd be quite in favor of it. But if we asked you right after you got in a doom scrolling sadness argument, you'd probably hate it. Too many of these studies are based on self-reporting; I feel that we need something more to really get correct answers.
  - borgdefense 2y ago
    You have agency, you could just delete your social media. I have never used Tiktok, haven't used Facebook since 2014 and Twitter wouldn't be worth using if I was sent a monthly check in the mail. People just txt me and those that don't have my number, don't have my number for a reason. Of course, I am missing out on what my cousin's ex wife is having for lunch. This is a feature though and not a bug.
- HPsquared 2y ago
  That one could also be reverse causality. People who don't enjoy their local area spend time in cyberspace instead.
  - Broken_Hippo 2y ago
    Which might be if it said they were spending a lot of time online. It just says in the past week. Most folks I know use the internet a little bit each and every day, even if they aren't being social. Banking, playing a single player game (after logging into playstations network, of course), reading news, watching a show or movie.
_mlbt 2y ago
> The team found that, on average, people who had access to the Internet scored 8% higher on measures of life satisfaction, positive experiences and contentment with their social life, compared with people who lacked web access. Online activities can help people to learn new things and make friends, and this could contribute to the beneficial effects, suggests Appel. I'm not seeing how they accounted for the fact that people with access to the Internet are more likely to have access to other things that would improve life satisfaction such as food security, quality health care, social and economic safety nets, education, and leisure time. I would imagine factors such as these play a bigger impact than the Internet on a person's well being.
- Karrot_Kream 2y ago
  Hm did you miss the section on this? "The researchers controlled for factors that might affect Internet use and welfare, including income level, employment status, education level and health problems." The linked paper has a section on Covariates that explains the methodology used to control for factors such as income.
  - _mlbt 2y ago
    I saw that, but I'm still not convinced. Correlation not equalling causation and all of that. There are too many factors that play into personal well being and the regions of the world with pervasive access to the Internet are drastically different from the regions of the world without it.
    - saulrh 2y ago
      Which is why you need high-quality and large-scale data on the relationship between income and internet usage and the relationship between income and happiness so you can chain those together and subtract the whole thing out. Yes, error bars stack up rapidly. That's why you need 2 million data points to get a reasonable conclusion, when you only need ~1000 to get high-quality information on things like consumer preferences or political affiliations. Good thing that we have plenty of people that are very interested in things like "how much happier does money make you" and full-scale datasets like that are produced on a regular basis! Really, the math isn't any harder than what's necessary to land a rocket screaming along at mach 8 or reverse a couple terabytes of voltage readings into a nice clean volumetric medical image.
akira2501 2y ago
People are social animals. Why wouldn't they benefit from the use of social tools and a worldwide fast-as-light communication network? The problem, to me, isn't that TikTok or Twitter or Whatever exists, it's that they're in the control of monopolists and not of the users, and to the maximum extent possible these companies have loaded these tools with expertly constructed dark patterns designed to stultify and distract users away from self improvement and into self indulgence.
- tivert 2y ago
  > People are social animals. Why wouldn't they benefit from the use of social tools and a worldwide fast-as-light communication network? Because those tools are often not a good fit for human sociability? "More and faster" is not always better, though it's a tempting metric for technology people because it's oversimplified and easily quantifiable.
  - akira2501 2y ago
    I meant social tools in general. The second paragraph addresses what I believe to be the specific mechanics driving our current popular flawed implementations of these tools. It should be noted, these are not the only sites in existence, and viewing "social media" strictly through the lens of them is probably unproductive.
    - tivert 2y ago
      > The second paragraph addresses what I believe to be the specific mechanics driving our current popular flawed implementations of these tools. I don't agree with your assessment. I think there are fundamental problems with these tools not caused by "monopolists" or "dark patterns." One that easily comes to mind is the dysfunction that comes from people being separated from in-personal social feedback and other kinds of regulatory practices.
      - akira2501 2y ago
        > One that easily comes to mind is the dysfunction that comes from people being separated from in-personal social feedback You seem to be describing a situation in which the person is not _choosing_ to use these tools. In which case, it doesn't seem like the tool that's the problem, but a corporation using it inappropriately. Which, again, is the result of the labor market being monopolized. If this practice is as deleterious as you suggest, then why put up with it, unless you don't have a realistic choice. So, I actually think you've precisely made my point for me.
uniqueuid 2y ago
Great take at the end of this piece: "“The study cannot contribute to the recent debate on whether or not social-media use is harmful, or whether or not smartphones should be banned at schools,” because the study was not designed to answer these questions, says Tobias Dienlin, who studies how social media affects well-being at the University of Vienna. “Different channels and uses of the Internet have vastly different effects on well-being outcomes,” he says."
brink 2y ago
I don't need a multi-million person study to know that it boosts mental illness too, I know that from personal experience. Cut out all the social media, the porn, and limit my HN/Youtube usage, and yeah, it's not bad for me. The internet is a powerful, yet dangerous tool. Use it properly, and it's a good thing.
photonthug 2y ago
Isn’t the internet probably better in the global south or with non English languages just because spam is generally more difficult and less valuable to produce? This seems like a confounding variable just because platform popularity all by itself tends to be the end of a decent platform, social network or otherwise.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
warcher 2y ago
I think putting internet usage in the west and the developing world into the same bucket is… of questionable utility. I bet access to the wider world is in fact a benefit in many parts of the planet. But why on earth is that comparison worth examining as evidence that the internet is good for wellbeing in the west?
olliej 2y ago
Having worked on a browser engine for a decade I feel confident saying that it mostly just hurts
aaron695 2y ago
[dead]
mharig 2y ago
Maybe the Netties just consume more news and opinions from their favorite political idiocy, while the others have to face reality.

74 points by gumby 2y ago

>The team found that, on average, people who had access to the Internet scored 8% higher on measures of life satisfaction, positive experiences and contentment with their social life, compared with people who lacked web access. The current HN title ("2.4M person study: Internet use boosts, not hurts, well being") seems a bit of a stretch with regard to causation.

gumby 2y ago
Because the title itself was clickbaity (“surprise effect”) I tried to summarize both title and subtitle. I think I did ok in that regard, but as you say the two sentences could themselves overstate things. But I figured any more edit would get into the discouraged editorializing
- michelsedgh 2y ago
  So it was two clickbaity titles and you summarized them both into one very more clickbaity title. Good job
  - gumby 2y ago
    Thank you. It seemed the most consistent with the HN title “rules”.

HankB99 2y ago

> However, women aged 15–24 who reported having used the Internet in the past week were, on average, less happy with the place they live, compared with people who didn’t use the web. I was wondering about the overall effect for young folk and women in particular. It seems like the effect is fairly narrow and not what I would expect. I also wonder if the effects from substantial social media interaction could be teased out.

Verdex 2y ago
>I also wonder if the effects from substantial social media interaction could be teased out. Yeah, this is what I was thinking as well. The internet absolutely has a positive effect on my life. Finding out which store I need to go to, how to do simple home repairs, how to start a garden, maps, ordering groceries (we've got 4 young children; grocery pickup is a life saver). And on the other hand, social media is terrible for me. There's just something about doom scrolling that's hard to give up because it's the perfect way to kill dead time.
- bombcar 2y ago
  And I bet if we asked you how the Internet was for you right after you ordered groceries, you'd be quite in favor of it. But if we asked you right after you got in a doom scrolling sadness argument, you'd probably hate it. Too many of these studies are based on self-reporting; I feel that we need something more to really get correct answers.
- borgdefense 2y ago
  You have agency, you could just delete your social media. I have never used Tiktok, haven't used Facebook since 2014 and Twitter wouldn't be worth using if I was sent a monthly check in the mail. People just txt me and those that don't have my number, don't have my number for a reason. Of course, I am missing out on what my cousin's ex wife is having for lunch. This is a feature though and not a bug.
HPsquared 2y ago
That one could also be reverse causality. People who don't enjoy their local area spend time in cyberspace instead.
- Broken_Hippo 2y ago
  Which might be if it said they were spending a lot of time online. It just says in the past week. Most folks I know use the internet a little bit each and every day, even if they aren't being social. Banking, playing a single player game (after logging into playstations network, of course), reading news, watching a show or movie.

_mlbt 2y ago

> The team found that, on average, people who had access to the Internet scored 8% higher on measures of life satisfaction, positive experiences and contentment with their social life, compared with people who lacked web access. Online activities can help people to learn new things and make friends, and this could contribute to the beneficial effects, suggests Appel. I'm not seeing how they accounted for the fact that people with access to the Internet are more likely to have access to other things that would improve life satisfaction such as food security, quality health care, social and economic safety nets, education, and leisure time. I would imagine factors such as these play a bigger impact than the Internet on a person's well being.

Karrot_Kream 2y ago
Hm did you miss the section on this? "The researchers controlled for factors that might affect Internet use and welfare, including income level, employment status, education level and health problems." The linked paper has a section on Covariates that explains the methodology used to control for factors such as income.
- _mlbt 2y ago
  I saw that, but I'm still not convinced. Correlation not equalling causation and all of that. There are too many factors that play into personal well being and the regions of the world with pervasive access to the Internet are drastically different from the regions of the world without it.
  - saulrh 2y ago
    Which is why you need high-quality and large-scale data on the relationship between income and internet usage and the relationship between income and happiness so you can chain those together and subtract the whole thing out. Yes, error bars stack up rapidly. That's why you need 2 million data points to get a reasonable conclusion, when you only need ~1000 to get high-quality information on things like consumer preferences or political affiliations. Good thing that we have plenty of people that are very interested in things like "how much happier does money make you" and full-scale datasets like that are produced on a regular basis! Really, the math isn't any harder than what's necessary to land a rocket screaming along at mach 8 or reverse a couple terabytes of voltage readings into a nice clean volumetric medical image.

akira2501 2y ago

People are social animals. Why wouldn't they benefit from the use of social tools and a worldwide fast-as-light communication network? The problem, to me, isn't that TikTok or Twitter or Whatever exists, it's that they're in the control of monopolists and not of the users, and to the maximum extent possible these companies have loaded these tools with expertly constructed dark patterns designed to stultify and distract users away from self improvement and into self indulgence.

tivert 2y ago
> People are social animals. Why wouldn't they benefit from the use of social tools and a worldwide fast-as-light communication network? Because those tools are often not a good fit for human sociability? "More and faster" is not always better, though it's a tempting metric for technology people because it's oversimplified and easily quantifiable.
- akira2501 2y ago
  I meant social tools in general. The second paragraph addresses what I believe to be the specific mechanics driving our current popular flawed implementations of these tools. It should be noted, these are not the only sites in existence, and viewing "social media" strictly through the lens of them is probably unproductive.
  - tivert 2y ago
    > The second paragraph addresses what I believe to be the specific mechanics driving our current popular flawed implementations of these tools. I don't agree with your assessment. I think there are fundamental problems with these tools not caused by "monopolists" or "dark patterns." One that easily comes to mind is the dysfunction that comes from people being separated from in-personal social feedback and other kinds of regulatory practices.
    - akira2501 2y ago
      > One that easily comes to mind is the dysfunction that comes from people being separated from in-personal social feedback You seem to be describing a situation in which the person is not _choosing_ to use these tools. In which case, it doesn't seem like the tool that's the problem, but a corporation using it inappropriately. Which, again, is the result of the labor market being monopolized. If this practice is as deleterious as you suggest, then why put up with it, unless you don't have a realistic choice. So, I actually think you've precisely made my point for me.

uniqueuid 2y ago

Great take at the end of this piece: "“The study cannot contribute to the recent debate on whether or not social-media use is harmful, or whether or not smartphones should be banned at schools,” because the study was not designed to answer these questions, says Tobias Dienlin, who studies how social media affects well-being at the University of Vienna. “Different channels and uses of the Internet have vastly different effects on well-being outcomes,” he says."

brink 2y ago

I don't need a multi-million person study to know that it boosts mental illness too, I know that from personal experience. Cut out all the social media, the porn, and limit my HN/Youtube usage, and yeah, it's not bad for me. The internet is a powerful, yet dangerous tool. Use it properly, and it's a good thing.

photonthug 2y ago

Isn’t the internet probably better in the global south or with non English languages just because spam is generally more difficult and less valuable to produce? This seems like a confounding variable just because platform popularity all by itself tends to be the end of a decent platform, social network or otherwise.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

warcher 2y ago

I think putting internet usage in the west and the developing world into the same bucket is… of questionable utility. I bet access to the wider world is in fact a benefit in many parts of the planet. But why on earth is that comparison worth examining as evidence that the internet is good for wellbeing in the west?

olliej 2y ago

Having worked on a browser engine for a decade I feel confident saying that it mostly just hurts

aaron695 2y ago

[dead]

mharig 2y ago

Maybe the Netties just consume more news and opinions from their favorite political idiocy, while the others have to face reality.