4 ms·

It's increasingly discussed in traditional media too so let's toss out that first line glib dismissal. More and more people declaring it's net-negative is the

It's increasingly discussed in traditional media too so let's toss out that first line glib dismissal. More and more people declaring it's net-negative is the first step towards changing anything. Academic "let's evaluate each individual point about it on its own merits" is not how this sort of thing finds political momentum. (Or we could argue that "social media" in the Facebook-era sense is just one part of a larger entity, "the internet," that we're singling out.)

paganel 1y ago
What’a being discussed in the traditional media has no value anymore because it’s a dead medium, inhabited by dinosaurs.
krapp 1y ago
"net-negative" sounds like a rigidly defined mathematically derived result but it's basically just a vibe that means "I hate social media more than I like it."
- sedawkgrep 1y ago
  I'm struggling to understand your point, especially since the conclusion you posit is rather glib and dismissive. Net-negative is not quantifiable. But it is definitely qualifiable. I don't think you have to think of things in terms of "hate it more than I like it" when you have actual examples on social media of children posting self-harm and suicide, hooliganism and outright crimes posted for viewership, blatant misinformation proliferation, and the unbelievable broad and deep affect powerful entities can have on public information/opinion through SM. I think we can agree all of these are bad, and a net-negative, without needing any mathematic rigor.
  - krapp 1y ago
    My point is that "More and more people declaring social media net-negative" doesn't mean anything, and it certainly isn't a valid "first step towards changing anything" because it isn't actionable. >I don't think you have to think of things in terms of "hate it more than I like it" when you have actual examples on social media of children posting self-harm and suicide, hooliganism and outright crimes posted for viewership, blatant misinformation proliferation, and the unbelievable broad and deep affect powerful entities can have on public information/opinion through SM. Sure, and then there's plenty of children not posting self-harm and suicide, hooliganism and outright crimes posted for viewership, and plenty of information and perfectly normal, non-harmful communication and interaction. "net-negative" implies there is far more harmful content than non-harmful, and that most people using social media are using it in a negative way, which seems more like a bias than anything proven. I can agree that there are harmful and negative aspects of social media without agreeing that the majority of social media content and usage is harmful and negative.
    - sedawkgrep 1y ago
      While I appreciate the idea that moving without factual data is often detrimental (which is what I believe you're implying here), I don't share the opinion that SM deserves any benefit of the doubt. I'm old enough to have lived as an adult pre-SM, and from my perspective the overwhelming impact of social media has been more inflammatory, degrading, divisive, etc., etc., etc., than whatever positives you think you're getting. A family friend's teenage daughter isn't allowed a cell phone, and thus has zero presence or view into SM spaces. Unlike nearly all her friends, she doesn't suffer from depression, anxiety, or any other common malady that is so prevalent today with the youth. Yes it's anecdotal, but it's also stark. We got along just fine before SM, and we'd be just fine again without it.
      - krapp 1y ago
        That's just your perspective, based on the fact that controversy makes headlines and normality doesn't. One might conclude based on headlines and populist political rhetoric that the US is a crime-filled hellhole, awash in gang violence and illegal aliens swarming over the border raping and pillaging and burning entire cities to the ground, whereas in reality crime is lower than it has been for years. Perceptions created by the media aren't always accurate, and "social media is a cancer" is absolutely a media-driven narrative. Remember when TikTok was a CCP mind-control weapon turning our children into sleeper agents? When Twitter was threat to the very existence of Western democracy that controlled human speech and could topple governments at will? The vast Marxist conspiracy behind all social media that rigged elections for the DNC? The louder such narratives become, the more we should question the motives of whomever holds the bullhorn. A lot of people using social media aren't teenagers. A lot of teenagers are depressed and anxious for reasons other than using social media. A lot of teenagers use social media and aren't depressed and anxious because of it. A lot of teenagers find community and support for their issues through social media. Your extrapolation from a sample size of "one teenage girl and her friends that I'm aware of" to the billions of people currently using social media, and your conclusion that social media is responsible for all of the maladies common to youth doesn't really mean much.
        1y ago
logicchains 1y ago
>It's increasingly discussed in traditional media too so let's toss out that first line glib dismissal. Traditional media is the absolute worst possible source for anything related to social media because of the extreme conflict of interest. Decentralised media is a fundamental threat to the business model of centralised media, so of course most of the coverage of social media in traditional media will be negative.
- alisonatwork 1y ago
  Unfortunately most of what people understand as "social media" is not decentralized, and most of the biggest names on Substack in particular come directly out of "traditional media", which is exactly why it's not a real alternative. Substack is just another newspaper except now readers have to pay for every section they want to read.
  - bluebarbet 1y ago
    The difference between traditional and social media is not just technical. Traditional media hosts a profession (journalism) with a code of ethics, editorial oversight, minimal standards, a mission of truth-seeking. It's easy to be cynical but those things have generally served us well. The Substack jungle is not a good replacement.
    - paganel 1y ago
      Yes, they get paid to spill out stuff that materially benefits those that do the paying, there’s another name for that that I won’t use on a Sunday.
    - ivewonyoung 1y ago
      > Traditional media hosts a profession (journalism) with a code of ethics, editorial oversight, minimal standards, a mission of truth-seeking Which traditional media outlets follow those things nowadays? Genuine question, looking for information and news to consume.
delusional 1y ago
> More and more people declaring it's net-negative is the first step towards changing anything. I accept that "net-negative" is a cultural shorthand, but I really wish we could go beyond it. I don't think people are suddenly looking at both sides of the equation and evaluating rationally that their social media interactions are net negative. I think what's happening is a change in the novelty of social media. That is, the the net value is changing. Originally, social media was fun and novel, but once that novelty wears away it's flat and lifeless. It's sort of abstractly interesting to discuss tech with likeminded people on HN, but once we get past the novelty, I don't know any of you. Behind the screen-names is a sea of un-identifiable faces that I have to assume are like-minded to have any interesting discussions with, but which are most certainly not like me at all. Its endless discussions with people who don't care. I think that's what you're seeing. A society caught up in the novelty, losing that naive enjoyment. Not a realization of met effects.
Lerc 1y ago
I did not consider it a glib dismissal, and I would not consider traditional media an appropriate avenue to litigate this either. Trial by media is a term used to describe something that generally think shouldn't occur. The appropriate place to find out what is and isn't true is research. Do research, write papers, discuss results, resolve contradictions in findings, reach consensus. The media should not be deciding what is true, they should be reporting what they see. Importantly they should make clear that the existence of a thing is not the same thing as the prevalence of a thing. >Academic "let's evaluate each individual point about it on its own merits" is not how this sort of thing finds political momentum. I think much of my post was in effect saying that a good deal of the problem is the belief that building political momentum is more important than accuracy.
- TheOtherHobbes 1y ago
  There's plenty of research. Plenty. None of it is positive. Summaries with links here. https://socialmediavictims.org/effects-of-social-media/ https://socialmediavictims.org/effects-of-social-media/ It's really not hard to confirm this. The problem isn't that "building political momentum is more important than accuracy", it's that social media is a huge global industry that pumps out psychological, emotional, and political pollution. And like all major polluters, it has a very strong interest in denying what it's doing.
  - genrilz 1y ago
    There is plenty of research on social media outcomes. I've looked through some of it before by just searching semanticscholar.org, and the general consensus is that it has both positive and negative effects. I don't want to have to do a literature review again, and sharing papers is hard because they are often paywalled unless you are associated with a university or are willing to pirate them. Luckily, The American Psychological Association [0] has shared this nice health advisory [1] which goes into detail. The APA has stewarded psychology research and communicated it to the public in the US for a long time. They have a good track record. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Psychological_Association https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Psychological_Associa... [1]: https://www.apa.org/topics/social-media-internet/health-advisory-adolescent-social-media-use https://www.apa.org/topics/social-media-internet/health-advi...

paganel 1y ago

What’a being discussed in the traditional media has no value anymore because it’s a dead medium, inhabited by dinosaurs.

krapp 1y ago

"net-negative" sounds like a rigidly defined mathematically derived result but it's basically just a vibe that means "I hate social media more than I like it."

sedawkgrep 1y ago
I'm struggling to understand your point, especially since the conclusion you posit is rather glib and dismissive. Net-negative is not quantifiable. But it is definitely qualifiable. I don't think you have to think of things in terms of "hate it more than I like it" when you have actual examples on social media of children posting self-harm and suicide, hooliganism and outright crimes posted for viewership, blatant misinformation proliferation, and the unbelievable broad and deep affect powerful entities can have on public information/opinion through SM. I think we can agree all of these are bad, and a net-negative, without needing any mathematic rigor.
- krapp 1y ago
  My point is that "More and more people declaring social media net-negative" doesn't mean anything, and it certainly isn't a valid "first step towards changing anything" because it isn't actionable. >I don't think you have to think of things in terms of "hate it more than I like it" when you have actual examples on social media of children posting self-harm and suicide, hooliganism and outright crimes posted for viewership, blatant misinformation proliferation, and the unbelievable broad and deep affect powerful entities can have on public information/opinion through SM. Sure, and then there's plenty of children not posting self-harm and suicide, hooliganism and outright crimes posted for viewership, and plenty of information and perfectly normal, non-harmful communication and interaction. "net-negative" implies there is far more harmful content than non-harmful, and that most people using social media are using it in a negative way, which seems more like a bias than anything proven. I can agree that there are harmful and negative aspects of social media without agreeing that the majority of social media content and usage is harmful and negative.
  - sedawkgrep 1y ago
    While I appreciate the idea that moving without factual data is often detrimental (which is what I believe you're implying here), I don't share the opinion that SM deserves any benefit of the doubt. I'm old enough to have lived as an adult pre-SM, and from my perspective the overwhelming impact of social media has been more inflammatory, degrading, divisive, etc., etc., etc., than whatever positives you think you're getting. A family friend's teenage daughter isn't allowed a cell phone, and thus has zero presence or view into SM spaces. Unlike nearly all her friends, she doesn't suffer from depression, anxiety, or any other common malady that is so prevalent today with the youth. Yes it's anecdotal, but it's also stark. We got along just fine before SM, and we'd be just fine again without it.
    - krapp 1y ago
      That's just your perspective, based on the fact that controversy makes headlines and normality doesn't. One might conclude based on headlines and populist political rhetoric that the US is a crime-filled hellhole, awash in gang violence and illegal aliens swarming over the border raping and pillaging and burning entire cities to the ground, whereas in reality crime is lower than it has been for years. Perceptions created by the media aren't always accurate, and "social media is a cancer" is absolutely a media-driven narrative. Remember when TikTok was a CCP mind-control weapon turning our children into sleeper agents? When Twitter was threat to the very existence of Western democracy that controlled human speech and could topple governments at will? The vast Marxist conspiracy behind all social media that rigged elections for the DNC? The louder such narratives become, the more we should question the motives of whomever holds the bullhorn. A lot of people using social media aren't teenagers. A lot of teenagers are depressed and anxious for reasons other than using social media. A lot of teenagers use social media and aren't depressed and anxious because of it. A lot of teenagers find community and support for their issues through social media. Your extrapolation from a sample size of "one teenage girl and her friends that I'm aware of" to the billions of people currently using social media, and your conclusion that social media is responsible for all of the maladies common to youth doesn't really mean much.
      - 1y ago

logicchains 1y ago

>It's increasingly discussed in traditional media too so let's toss out that first line glib dismissal. Traditional media is the absolute worst possible source for anything related to social media because of the extreme conflict of interest. Decentralised media is a fundamental threat to the business model of centralised media, so of course most of the coverage of social media in traditional media will be negative.

alisonatwork 1y ago
Unfortunately most of what people understand as "social media" is not decentralized, and most of the biggest names on Substack in particular come directly out of "traditional media", which is exactly why it's not a real alternative. Substack is just another newspaper except now readers have to pay for every section they want to read.
- bluebarbet 1y ago
  The difference between traditional and social media is not just technical. Traditional media hosts a profession (journalism) with a code of ethics, editorial oversight, minimal standards, a mission of truth-seeking. It's easy to be cynical but those things have generally served us well. The Substack jungle is not a good replacement.
  - paganel 1y ago
    Yes, they get paid to spill out stuff that materially benefits those that do the paying, there’s another name for that that I won’t use on a Sunday.
  - ivewonyoung 1y ago
    > Traditional media hosts a profession (journalism) with a code of ethics, editorial oversight, minimal standards, a mission of truth-seeking Which traditional media outlets follow those things nowadays? Genuine question, looking for information and news to consume.

delusional 1y ago

> More and more people declaring it's net-negative is the first step towards changing anything. I accept that "net-negative" is a cultural shorthand, but I really wish we could go beyond it. I don't think people are suddenly looking at both sides of the equation and evaluating rationally that their social media interactions are net negative. I think what's happening is a change in the novelty of social media. That is, the the net value is changing. Originally, social media was fun and novel, but once that novelty wears away it's flat and lifeless. It's sort of abstractly interesting to discuss tech with likeminded people on HN, but once we get past the novelty, I don't know any of you. Behind the screen-names is a sea of un-identifiable faces that I have to assume are like-minded to have any interesting discussions with, but which are most certainly not like me at all. Its endless discussions with people who don't care. I think that's what you're seeing. A society caught up in the novelty, losing that naive enjoyment. Not a realization of met effects.

Lerc 1y ago

I did not consider it a glib dismissal, and I would not consider traditional media an appropriate avenue to litigate this either. Trial by media is a term used to describe something that generally think shouldn't occur. The appropriate place to find out what is and isn't true is research. Do research, write papers, discuss results, resolve contradictions in findings, reach consensus. The media should not be deciding what is true, they should be reporting what they see. Importantly they should make clear that the existence of a thing is not the same thing as the prevalence of a thing. >Academic "let's evaluate each individual point about it on its own merits" is not how this sort of thing finds political momentum. I think much of my post was in effect saying that a good deal of the problem is the belief that building political momentum is more important than accuracy.

TheOtherHobbes 1y ago
There's plenty of research. Plenty. None of it is positive. Summaries with links here. https://socialmediavictims.org/effects-of-social-media/ https://socialmediavictims.org/effects-of-social-media/ It's really not hard to confirm this. The problem isn't that "building political momentum is more important than accuracy", it's that social media is a huge global industry that pumps out psychological, emotional, and political pollution. And like all major polluters, it has a very strong interest in denying what it's doing.
- genrilz 1y ago
  There is plenty of research on social media outcomes. I've looked through some of it before by just searching semanticscholar.org, and the general consensus is that it has both positive and negative effects. I don't want to have to do a literature review again, and sharing papers is hard because they are often paywalled unless you are associated with a university or are willing to pirate them. Luckily, The American Psychological Association [0] has shared this nice health advisory [1] which goes into detail. The APA has stewarded psychology research and communicated it to the public in the US for a long time. They have a good track record. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Psychological_Association https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Psychological_Associa... [1]: https://www.apa.org/topics/social-media-internet/health-advisory-adolescent-social-media-use https://www.apa.org/topics/social-media-internet/health-advi...