Slashdot Mirror
Study: Social Networks Have Negative Effect On Individual Welfare
An anonymous reader writes: A study of 50,000 people in Italy has found the impact of social networking on individual welfare to be "significantly negative." The researchers found that improvements in self-reported well-being occurred when online networking led to face-to-face interactions, but this effect was overwhelmed by the perceived losses in well-being (PDF) generated by interaction strictly through social networks. The researchers "highlight the role of discrimination and hate speech on social media which they say play a significant role in trust and well-being. Better moderation could significantly improve the well-being of the people who use social networks, they conclude."
Bail! Bail!
I always thought social media like Facebook and Twitter made people narcissists or made their narcissism worse. People always looks online and compare their lives to others and become depressed.
People think I'm anti-social becoz I have no Facebook, Twitter, I don't text, etc. I don't use supermarket loyalty cards which are sold to companies like insurance companies, which then jack up your rates.
I could see this being very plausible for someone that suffers from depression. Seeing other people happy could potentially adversely effect someone that is clinically depressed .
Well, that explains a lot.
Nobody ever talks to anyone anymore. People don't learn to respect and value each other in the real world without face time in the real world. Trust me, as someone who never engages in conversation with people, I'm thoroughly convinced that all people are complete shit!
Call me cynical, but I just don't see Facebook adopting a sane moderation system, like for example anything that approximates slashcode.
Their equivalent of "moderation" would better resemble censorship. They would simply hide the thoughts and comments they don't think you would like. Of course, it would be for your own good...
Moderation censors opinions contrary to the majority of the participants in a particular forum. This frustrates those who need to communicate critical points, which will produce an entirely new set of negative feelings and may even break the behavioral hooks that make social networking appealing.
Cloudiot: A person who does not see offsite storage as a way to lose control over access to his or her own data.
Call me cynical, but I just don't see Facebook adopting a sane moderation system, like for example anything that approximates slashcode.
Their equivalent of "moderation" would better resemble censorship. They would simply hide the thoughts and comments they don't think you would like. Of course, it would be for your own good...
No, they mean moderation.
Censorship is the suppression of speech. For example: "You can't talk about Oranges, they are evil!"
Moderation is the regulation of speech: "You can talk about Oranges, just not here. Go over there to talk about Oranges."
Freedom of speech means you have the right to say what you want, But I have and equal right to throw you out of my house if I don't like what you have to say. You seem to want the right to force me to listen to you, and that's just as bad as any form of censorship.
Because they have known for a long time that without the face-to-face interaction, their social network would collapse. They have been running experiments on people for a while now. This study is nothing new to them. Virtual hangouts will be their fix.
Coward -- I get the feeling you're going somewhere interesting here, but the metaphor isn't quite working. Would you mind spoon feeding what you're getting at here, without putting on any kind of satire/parody of what I said? Are you saying moderation is equivalent to jail time? Freedom of speech equivalent to freedom to move about public space? Freedom of speech "invented" by someone? Too many things going on at once to make your point clearly, at least to me.
Cloudiot: A person who does not see offsite storage as a way to lose control over access to his or her own data.
There's also this dying art called self-moderation that would make forced moderation or censorship unnecessary. Too much to ask that humans rediscover that ethic, I guess.
Maybe they meant self-moderation?
... and I don't even use it.
Actually my ultimate fear in this scenario has nothing to do with what I can "force people to listen to" as you put it. It has everything to do with what Facebook might decide we shouldn't hear.
And, who knows, maybe Facebook actually is capable and willing to implementing a sane, thoughtful moderation system. I just don't have faith that they ever will.
OTOH, I wouldn't doubt for a second that they prioritized items in your newsfeed based on who paid them advertising dollars. And in the same vein, I wouldn't doubt if they used a fancy new "moderation" system to simply block content they didn't want their users to see.
Call me cynical, but I just don't see Facebook adopting a sane moderation system, like for example anything that approximates slashcode. Their equivalent of "moderation" would better resemble censorship. They would simply hide the thoughts and comments they don't think you would like. Of course, it would be for your own good...
It's likely that a portion of the story is something that we also see here on /.: None of them really support anything that might be called a true "discussion". The reason both here and FB and the other "social media" is the approach of having a running string of "latest" topics, which quickly scroll off the bottom and out of sight. If you don't happen to see a thread in the first hour or so, you generally won't ever see it, and won't contribute to it. So, except for a few rabid topics like religion or partisan politics, where a small group can have fun running it out to thousands of rephrasings of each person's personal views, most discussion threads are typically shallow, and peter out at a depth in the single digits.
I've talked to a number of people here who express disappointment at how shallow the /. discussions usually are. They start of hoping to find in-depth analyses that point them to information that they hadn't run across or noticed. But they're disappointed with most of the threads, which only repeat a few things that those familiar with the topic already know, and then the threads just stop.
FB is quite a lot worse this way than /., of course. I've been on it for some years, and I've never noticed a "discussion" that got to depth greater than 3. I'm sure they exist; I've just never seen them. And a lot of my friends are quite well-informed "geeks" who in person can engage in long discussions. Why don't they do this on FB? Well, they may try, but quickly learn that few people ever read, much less reply to, their comments. Over here, we do sometimes get a bit deeper than that, and I've seen a lot of good information here at depth 5 or 6. But still, that's not very deep as discussions go.
I've seen much better (i.e., deeper and more informative) discussions on nearly every mailing list I've been on. If you want actual informative, socially interactive discussions, that's a noticeably better model for a forum's structure.
But the "social media" is primarily just an electronic form of the old "see and be seen" sort of social event. Such things have always been known as shallow and uninformative, although they can be fun if populated by the right crowd.
Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
It has nothing to do with moderation anyway. People on social networks barely interact with each other, they're reading about others like in news feeds, and they don't really do anything together. It's kind of obvious that things like (random examples) playing in a band, having a barbecue, watching a movie with friends or doing wild river rafting tend to make most people more happy than browsing web pages all day.
Moderation is the regulation of speech: "You can talk about Oranges, just not here. Go over there to talk about Oranges."
It becomes censorship when the moderation authority continues: "You can't talk about over there, it is evil!"
This was a study on Italians. It also smells suspiciously like the old "games cause violence", "comics cause moral decay", "music causes moral decay" sorts of studies. Social networks are modern, so they're suspicious, and probably evil, right?
This is fascinating. It's not the classic "people don't have social lives in the real world because they are on line too much" argument. The authors argue that following people who are "different" from you is bad for you. They write:
"Compared to face-to-face interactions, online networks allow users to silently observe the opinions and behaviors of an immensely wider share of their fellow citizens. The psychological literature has shown that most people tend to overestimate the extent to which their beliefs or opinions are typical of those of others. There is a tendency for people to assume that their own opinions, beliefs, preferences, values, and habits are âoenormalâ and that others also think the same way that they do. This cognitive bias leads to the perception of a consensus that does not exist, or a 'false consensus' (Gamba, 2013)."
"The more people used Facebook at one time point, the worse they felt afterwards; the more they used Facebook over two weeks, the more their life satisfaction levels declined over time. The effects found by the authors were not moderated by the size of people's Facebook networks, their perceived supportiveness, motivation for using Facebook, gender, loneliness, self-esteem, or depression, thus suggesting the existence of a direct link between SNSs' use and subjective well-being."
This is a new result, and needs confirmation. Are homogeneous societies happier ones? Should that be replicated on line? Should efforts be made in Facebook to keep people from having "different" friends?
I think "free speech," is probably not really apropos to most social media.
I can speak freely on Facebook and get banned. There are Terms of Service and crap that says, essentially, that Facebook gets everything and I get nothing, in the way of protected activity.
I agreed to that when I signed on to that chicken shit outfit, right?
Also, censorship and Facebook doesn't sound right, either. It's their property. Facebook could fold on people who don't pay anything and they don't owe us a backup or stuff.
I can't think of any free place I visit where I can demand any kind of rights at all.
It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
Social networks make being a shut-in more socially acceptable when online meetings become a substitute for the real thing. FB meetings tend to be faceless except for your liberally retouched profile photo. And who knows if you're still having an intimate chat with that person in the photo and not her husband or the FBI already? With the possible exception of celebrities, you don't need the skills of an undercover agent to impersonate somebody in FB.
Perhaps people more likely to be depressive -- the shut-ins, the antisocial, or those without enough money to pay for real life social gatherings -- are more likely to use social networks extensively.
If video games influenced behavior the Pac Man generation would be eating pills and running away from their problems.
If you haven't got a thick skin, get off the internet. People will disagree with you, contradict you, post things that make you uncomfortable or that you find downright revolting.
The world is not "your oyster." People who disagree with you and that you find disagreeable have every bit as much right to be there as you. And when you consider the fact that some people find your Bible quotes and homilies offensive (as do I), it soon becomes clear that it's impossible to please everyone.
If you only want to hang out with like-minded people, form a nice little coffee-clique of people and socialize instead of trying to find "happiness" on the 'net.
I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
Well phrased.
Priest: "Universe from nothing, no laws of physics, sped up time"+ huge discrepancies. Creationism? No. Big Bang Theory
what about people like me who dislike social interaction, you insensitive clod!
Being constantly hammered by a ceaseless barrage of unnecessary hostility is detrimental to one's well being?
Whodathunkit?
Self-moderation is one of those things that we've always had more of 20 or 30 years ago.
Facebook (and Google) is already deciding what you will see, based upon who they think you want to see. Or, in the case of Google, what you want to see. You can try to get more neutral search results by never signing in, and by tossing cookies regularly, (or using a different search engine), but you cannot do that with Facebook. It really annoys me that Facebook decides who I get to see in my feed. Just because I don't reply to someone's posts doesn't mean I don't want to see their posts.
-- sudon't
Air-ride Equipped
"You have rights (and responsibilities) in all media ..."
Subject to the Terms of Service that I agree to.
It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
Censorship is the suppression of speech. For example: "You can't talk about Oranges, they are evil!"
Moderation is the regulation of speech: "You can talk about Oranges, just not here. Go over there to talk about Oranges."
A related problem is the "Free Speech Zones" outside political party rallies. They do not censor speech, but they do prevent you from speaking in some portion of the public square. To the extent that Facebook has become the public square, the cost to society of speech prohibition in that forum is the same. To the extent that "Free Speech Zones" are an infringement of free speech, and Facebook has become the public square, Facebook presents the same risks to society.
This is not merely a question of how you dice the legal technicalities, it is a question of the purpose and means of free speech. Free speech is more important to our society in the long run than any other right; it is the basis of having a strong GDP upon which Facebook can build its business. If Facebook becomes destructive of the system, it is our rationally self-interested duty as a society to stop it, even if the particular existing legal terms can be parsed in a way that says it is legal.
Stop-Prism.org: Opt Out of Surveillance