Facebook Leads To Increase In STDs in Britain
ectotherm writes "According to Professor Peter Kelly, a director of Public Health in Great Britain: 'There has been a four-fold increase in the number of syphilis cases detected, with more young women being affected.' Why the increase? People meeting up for casual sex through Facebook. According to the article, 'Social networking sites are making it easier for people to meet up for casual sex. There is a rise in syphilis because people are having more sexual partners than 20 years ago and often do not use condoms.'"
I've obviously been looking at the wrong places on Facebook. Where's the "casual sex hookup" area?
Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
You heard it here first, folks: Facebook users cannot figure out how to use condoms!
Wow, that's about as enlightening as saying bars and nightclubs lead to more casual sex. People socializing more, and it leads to sex? No shit. Doesn't really matter how the contact is made, does it?
...as they pointedly do NOT mention MySpace. Hmm. Wonder why that could be, NewsCorp?
Hmmm... that's a pretty good shock-headline-mostly-unrelated-to-the-facts, but I bet I can do better.
"Levi Jeans are Murdering Texans"
In a whopping 80% of deaths in the state of Texas, the deceased was wearing denim jeans - says a study conducted by the University of Jumping-to-Silly-Conclusions.
The german media watchblog BILDblog just reported (in german) this to be a hoax. The connection between Facebook and STDs was constructed by The Sun, not by Prof. Kelly.
The Department of Public Health even issued a counterstatement according to the BBC.
Correlation is not causation. Facebook usage may correlate, but doesn't cause it.
"Don't drink and park. Accidents make people."
I'd love to see your data disproving causation in this scenario. Or are you just making a blind guess?
Just because "facebook usage may coorelate" you cannot take the logical leap and say that it "doesn't cause it"
Correlation is often a good grounds for doing a study to determine causation/non-causation.
People who don't understand what "correlation != causation" is supposed to convey should avoid using it.