Slashdot Mirror
Facebook Admits that Some Social Media Use Can Be Harmful (axios.com)
In a new installment of its "Hard Questions" series, Facebook acknowledged on Friday that social media can have negative effects on people, depending on how they use it. From a report: This might be the first public acknowledgment from the company that its product -- and category in general -- can have detrimental effects on people. Facebook is also addressing the topic shortly after two former executives publicly criticized the company for what they described as exploiting human psychology. Passive use of social media -- reading information without interacting with others -- makes people feel worse. Clicking on more links or "liking" more posts than the average user also leads to worse mental health, according to one study.
Do you remember that time when tobacco companies finally admitted that "incorrect" use of their products "might be" harmful "to some"? I'm starting to see many parallels between "social" media and smoking. For starters, both are predominant factors in a large cluster of diseases.
If the Pope himself admitted some church attendance can be harmful, you'd definitely know the whole Catholic faith would be bad to the core.
"A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
Clicking on more links or "liking" more posts than the average user also leads to worse mental health, according to one study.
Slashdot Moderation Considered Harmful!
I wrote the clickbait headline. Pay me!
"Passive use of social media -- reading information without interacting with others -- makes people feel worse."
Thankfully hardly a billion people use FB that way.
Scientists conducting a study sponsored by RJ Reynolds have found that cigarette smoking stimulates your "T-Zone" and promotes healthy lung function in those consuming a moderate one pack per day.
Arguments that so-called 'social media' keeps people in touch with each other who are geographically too far apart to interact in person fall flat so far as I'm concerned; there's written letters, there's email, there's phone calls, there's skype, there's all sorts of ways for people who are motivated to keep in touch with each other. Otherwise 'social media' just seems to bring out the worst in people, because you're not saying anything to someones face, you're just typing on a keyboard. I've been around since the dialup BBS days and it wasn't fundamentally different with that than it is with 'social media' over the internet, but the overall effect it has on people is literally orders of magnitude worse because of the number of people involved simultaneously. Too many people on various incarnations of 'social media' over the last 20 years who are there for attention-whoring (Look at me, look at me! Pay attention to me!) or just plain running their mouths, with little or no consequences because they aren't having to face the people they're talking to or about. Worse, 'social media' on a massive scale (like Facebook and Twitter) seem to be creating an entire generation of people who will grow to adulthood with poor (or non-existent) social skills, becoming socially avoidant, because so-called 'social media' gives them an excuse to stay away from actual people instead of interacting with them in person in a healthy way. Bottom line: I think 'social media' is a cancer on our collective societies and I wish it would just go away. I can't see any way you could change it to make it healthy.
The application of neuroscience is smartphone apps is ubiquitous among apps that make the makers money from the users continued use of said app. It doesn't matter if it's a game or social media app, they all apply neurological tricks to maximize how much money the user will fetch them. This is should not be news to you and if it is then you should reconsider owning a smartphone and participating in social media.
Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
Spasibo, Zuckerberg.
Facebook doesn't know what it is talking about.
I think the premise of Facebook was fine, make you feel connected to people even though they may be physically too far away. Share moments in time quickly with people. Then it became a social game to acquire as many people you barely know to make you feel important.
Then it became the shout it out to the world fake news and extreme viewpoint site where people could gravitate to a comfort zone and demonize anyone else. Actually this isn't that different to a high school click although your much older, should be more mature and should want to absorb other points of view. The seedy parts of life have now infiltrated Facebook's of the internet and we just now begin to realize this fact.
Facebook doesn't know what it is talking about.
Check out the attention whore, posting something trollish to get attention.
And SO STUPID, posting with their itdentity
Proof positive that social media is rubbish. Is this how humans actually communicate? This cretin has all the space in the world to present a coherent argument to back up their claim, but apparently we're supposed to figure out what the fuck he's talking about.
NSFW
Just like everything else, thank you, that's all anybody needs to know. Just slap a label on it, like on the bottle of Drano.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
"90 percent of anything is shit" said the famous science fiction author. And so it is with social media.
Slashdot, however, is different. Here we have a diverse but focused gathering of professionals, mostly in IT but also representing the sciences, math and other fields of engineering, who exchange valuable pieces of knowledge and insight learned from their careers. Sure, we do have a few bad apples, but those "troll" posts are quickly modded down.
Facebook was so invested in because its potential to break down society was realized by its big investors. It wasn't a shot in the dark with their billions of dollars. It wasn't a surprise that social media would transform our society. They knew what it was to become and it profits them immensely.
Why do they want to break down society? Because they want to increase the level of control they have. Instead of programming society on the scale of groups, they want to control every atom; every individual, and open up new roads to exponentially more power.
People always explain away things like this saying "well that's just what people want and the company is just giving them what they want and making money, so this isn't really bad, this is progress! There's no conspiracy! People are smart, they aren't so easily suckered into things! They know what's good!"
The thing is that people are actually not that picky. They will accept just about ANY given solution for their basic needs as long as authority backs it consistently enough. So it becomes a question of what exactly we are progressing towards and who's interest it really is in.
Humans are not some transcendent creature with the guarantee of self awareness and intellect and rationality because of how much inherently better they are than all other life on Earth. These are optional features supported by a certain way of life. If you take away the nuances from the human way of life, if you take away the culture that support these higher functions, people go into "backward compatibility mode"; they re-adapt to a simpler, savage, prehistoric world. Simply put they devolve.
While most people don't know themselves well enough to see this, there are people who know this about humanity, and they know about it deeply. These people are leaders.
Leaders either choose to try to raise people up to their own level of awareness or leaders choose to plunge people down so they can never rise up. Leaders choose either cooperation or enslavement.
Humans are tribal creatures. They are beyond racist. They are beyond nepotistic. They will kill members of their own families who displease them. Humans are not only genocidal by default, they a fratricidal by default.
We can see this at every point in our history. We can see this in our close relatives like the chimpanzee that continue to live a way of life that we departed from eons ago.
Leaders cooperate and enslave in degrees. The closer you are to directly supporting the substance of the leader, that is, the more you share in common with the leader that you align with that leader's will, the more cooperation you will receive. The further, the more enslavement you will receive, up to the point that when your interests drift sufficiently you are immediately killed or otherwise neutralized.
What this amounts to is simple: as time goes on you will only become more distant and unable to adapt to the leader. The leader's own will replace everyone else. Eventually you drift into the zone of no return in relation to a current leader and unless the leader changes, your line will end: you, your family, your children all die and there are no more children thereafter.
Usually this takes a long time, so long that the diverse interests in the world shift and leaders change and most tribes survive at least long enough to make a compromise and intermingle with the dominant tribe. But things are becoming unusual: power is being consolidated on unprecedented scales with unprecedented stability, and it is making ever more exacting demands on its subjects as their numbers swell to challenge the Earth's ability to sustain them.
Humanity's genocidal nature has risen to the surface.
This all sounds very grim, until you consider the fact we've been up and down this situation for millions of years and have some pretty good solutions to the pitfalls and the problems that lead to them.
All the machinery is in place for us to CHOOSE our own leaders. Are you choosing yours? Are you prepared to? Can you make yo
My karma was manually wiped by site staff https://slashdot.org/~slshdtisctrldbysjws 18 mod up, 10 mod down = bad karma
The Pope himself has admitted some church attendance can be harmful. He apologized for child sex abuses by priests & Catholic orphanages.
Facebook is merely a tool, which can be used for
good or evil, and can be beneficial or harmful.
This is a self control issue, nothing more.
Hrm. Why do you think smoking meat in order to preserve them the same as inhaling smoke from herbs?