This is a great piece. It’s almost like huge numbers of researchers forget how to evaluate evidence when the study in question makes a hated outgroup look bad.
> That reliance on self-reporting — the teens' own opinions — as a single indicator of harm is a problem, says Candice Odgers, a psychologist who studies adolescence at University of California, Irvine and Duke University. That's because teenagers are already primed by media coverage, and the disapproval of adults, to believe that social media is bad for them.
And since when do teens care about the disapproval of adults? When I was a kid, video games were the terrible thing. I didn't know any kids who bought into that narrative—we knew they were harmless fun and kept playing.
I often would internalize the idea that I was "wasting" time by enjoying video games when I was growing up. I can trace my entire career back to gaming sparking my interest in computing. However, having experienced childhood trauma and lifelong depression, even though what I was doing was perfectly acceptable behavior, I would spin it into evidence that my negative self-perception was accurate.
I still struggle with this idea, and have been working to overcome feeling immense guilt when I take some time to blow off steam playing a game for a few hours.
They care when they believe it confirms their already existing bias. You will scoff at an adult telling you that D&D will make you satanic because you know that you are not satanic and have not had the urge to worship satan because of D&D.
But if they are telling you social media will make you feel bad about yourself, and you actually are feeling bad about yourself, you are likely to say.. yeah that is probably right. It allows them to cast their insecurities on to "Social Media" and say "I feel this way because of X". Otherwise where are these feelings coming from? Am I really a loser?
Oh, I definitely bought into all sorts of notions my parent consciously or unconsciously tried to instill in me about video games, reading, etc. It's not all powerful but it is powerful. I'm fully ready to believe there are some segments of kids that don't feel that effect but for me and my immediate peers it existed.
Trying to sort through what's real and what's being spun. Even here on HN, the thread[0] for a related article is being discussed much more. Maybe it's because of the ragebait headline that was used for the original post, I dunno.
My daughter is getting to the age where some of her friends are starting to get smartphones, so I'm trying to sort out what will actually be best for her long-term development. I don't want her to be socially stunted, but I also don't want her to expose her to something that could be detrimental to her mental well-being.
In an ideal world, these kinds of networks would be based on open, federated platforms a la Mastodon, Pixelfed, etc. As it stands I don't feel comfortable trusting the advertising industry to determine how these things should be run.
Who is responsible for policing content on Mastodon or other similar decentralised social media platforms?
Like it or not some entity or group need to be responsible for handling illegal and dangerous content.
As to the article, yeah NPR receives money from a lot of places. Is anyone asking about the motivation of NYT, WSJ, etc? Just trying to remain open minded about motives on all sides!
> but I also don't want her to expose her to something that could be detrimental to her mental well-being.
IMO there's not much you can do here. If all her friends are using Insta and she wants to too, she'll have one whether you like it or not.
The only difference is whether you'll know about it, but even that is up for question because many teens create secondary Insta accounts explicitly for the purpose of avoiding their parents' watchful eyes.
Isn't all this tech really to new to even know? Millenials are the first generation to really grow yo with all this and only just hit adult hood.
I also remeber everything being bad for my well being as a teen. Magazines and photoshop were the big thing, now it's just Instagram I guess. There's no shortage of ways to mess with a kids self esteem. Why single out tech and social media? What about sats and college admissions, and sports?
You know, Facebook is actually in the best position to rollback “social media” as we know it today. They just have to go back to linking only people who actually know each other in real life - and maybe at most a few degrees of separation; with the person’s permission (i.e. you have to opt-in to allow your friends/family to view your friend list / family list).
> Trying to sort through what's real and what's being spun.
Public opinion is important to various interests. Don't you think they'd try to manipulate it? Don't you think that astroturf campaigns on social media would be effective in driving narratives? Tons and tons and tons of internet sentiment these days is one influence op or another, and it's immediately obvious when you find a community where sentiment is organic: the difference is night and day, like between Bud Light and a great craft beer.
> Editor's note: Facebook is among NPR's financial supporters and since publishing her book, The Art of Screen Time, Kamenetz's husband took a job with Facebook. He works in an unrelated division.
The first research [0] mentioned in the article uses the following ways to measure "adolescents’ academic, psychological, and physical wellbeing":
> Academic achievement (n= 2,020) was obtained from administrative records providing the end-of-grade standardized test scores for reading and math for the 2014–2015 school year.
> School belonging (n= 2,104) was assessed with the six-item Psychological Sense of School Membership23 self-report scale of school membership (e.g., I feel like a real part of my school; People at my school are friendly to me; [0] Not at all true to [5] very true), α= 0.84.
> Conduct problems (n= 2,103) were assessed using the 26-item Problem Behavior Frequency Scale24 of behavioral aggression and violence in the last 30 days (e.g., In the last 30 days, how many times have you …skipped school; stolen something from another student; [0] Never, [1] 1–2 times, [2] 3–5 times, [3] 6–9 times, [4] 10–19 times, and [5] 20+ times). This scale was converted into a count of reported problems (binary for each item rated >1 then summed).
> Psychological distress (n=2,104) was assessed using the six-item Kessler Psychological Distress Scale25 to measure the frequency of participants’ feelings of distress over the past month (e.g., During the past 30 days… about how often did you feel worthless; about how often did feel restless or fidgety? [0] None of the time to [4] all of the time), α= 0.66.
> General physical health (n= 2,097) was assessed with an item from the Add Health General Health and Diet survey26 (i.e., In general, how is your health? [0] Poor to [4] excellent).
I find it not surprising that having a social media account is not statistically related to the results of these measurements. And I suspect for example, being exposed to online sexual contents will also not affect as well. When talking about these things, I tend to be skeptical of behaviorism and feel like a more nuanced methodology should be taken.
Tobacco companies also used to publish studies showing no links to cancer and smoking. Oil companies funded research that said climate change was limited and transitory. And OxyContin manufacture said is was not addictive.
"Editor's note: Facebook is among NPR's financial supporters and since publishing her book, The Art of Screen Time, Kamenetz's husband took a job with Facebook. He works in an unrelated division."
How is this not a conflict of interest that would preclude this particular journalist from covering this particular story? Facebook pays a portion of her bills. She owns Facebook stock. Her husband’s career at Facebook (and beyond) could be derailed by what she writes about Facebook. She has a material and vested interest in portraying Facebook in the best light possible.
At the very least an editors note disclosing such a substantial conflict ought to be at the top of the page, not the bottom. This really colors my opinion of NPR’s editorial and ethical standards.
“I've been covering kids + tech since ~2007. The Art of Screen Time pubbed in 2018. I've spoken on these topics at Aspen Ideas, Atlantic Fest, Apple, Google, SXSW. Collaborated with Mozilla. Adam's startup was acquired by Facebook in 2019. He works in hardware.”
Ouch. I missed this when I was reading it. Ugh, trying to navigate what is factually based and what is (potentially manufactured?) knee-jerk outrage is getting exhausting. Then there's the possibility that this piece is a manufactured wet blanket trying to douse the dumpster fire of negative reporting surrounding FB.
Note the difference between this coverage and e.g. NYT’s where there is little mention of all the Facebook trackers attached to their privacy project articles or the fact that they are so reliant on Facebook for income, and also so threatened by the company in the longer term.
Let's assume the author wrote the biggest fluff piece about Facebook imaginable. how much do you think it would affect the stock? a penny? Focusing on conflict of interest is just another lifehack to dismiss someone's argument without having to actually argue against its merits.
> Some ideas researchers are currently looking at: connecting young people with information about mental wellness or health; promoting accounts that have been shown to make people feel better about themselves; or prompting teens to check in with peers who are having a rough day.
I'm not a huge fan of Facebook (been off the platform since 2012), but these are great ideas, especially the last one. It's refreshing in the midst of all the doom.
How could you objectively measure the impact of social media, when pretty much everyone in that age group uses it. And those who don't, probably have factors not applicable to all. The very decision to abstain from social media may hint at a different neuronal setup/vulnerability.
If the research we got is the best we can realistically get, this author is making a dishonest and misleading argument.
I was talking to a vc friend of mine and he told me about this (conspiracy?) theory : Facebook is losing the teen/Gen z users on its platform to Tiktok and a regulation from congress would actually favor them, The leaks timed with FB subpoenas etc are to nudge the government to take action.
> At one point, escaping the negativity of it was enough, these days you're plastered with its toxicity even when not being a part it.
Most people I know have Facebook accounts and use sparingly to keep up with friends, family, and hobby groups. For the majority of users, the realities of Facebook are relatively boring. Nothing like the hyper-dramatic portrayal of social media as a "threat to our democracy" or an incurable, society-destroying addiction.
I think traditional media is overplaying their hand by cherry-picking the most problematic Facebook users and trying to tell everyone that those rare edge cases are actually the norm on Facebook. These stories are extremely popular with people who don't use Facebook because they validate their decision in an almost self-congratulatory manner. Everyone likes being told they made the right decision, so reading stories that Facebook is evil is some nice validation for someone who happens to fall into the non-Facebook camp.
Meanwhile, I think the general public is going to tire of these hyper-dramatic Facebook stories. The anti-Facebook news stories are starting to feel like an exaggerated moral panic relative to the boring realities of the average person's Facebook experience.
I am, however, concerned about the second-order effects of this new anti-Facebook culture war. What, exactly, do people expect to come of all of these calls for more regulation of speech on the internet? It's starting to feel like the tech communities are being tricked into rallying behind calls for more government intervention and censorship of speech on the internet, which is not something I would have predicted a decade ago.
That's the problem with the downsides of social media. Even if you don't use Facebook, Twitter, and the like, their negative impacts still reach you through the people around and the rest of society. I suppose it's a bit like second hand smoke now that I think about it.
That said, the article makes what I think is an important point, that social media is not universally negative, it has some positive effects for some people. I usually use the word "cancer" to describe my attitude to Facebook and Twitter, and why I won't use it, but that is intentional hyperbole to stop further discussion.
Perhaps there is a browser extension that an HN power-user has created to weed out topics by keyword. I had a similar extension filtering out animal abuse content on Reddit in the past, so something like that could easily weed out undesired topics.
There's an unfortunate "us vs them" rhetoric that I feel is going to bite a lot of people in the butt. It all begins with this misconception that Facebook is a common carrier: they're large and valuable, but much like Microsoft Teams, iMessage and AWS, they're still private entities. There's an EULA, clear as day that states who's right and who's wrong here, and they've got your digital signature to corroborate it. It's not like the US government has any interest in giving up these invaluable domestic data sources, so they'll happily turn a blind eye to every complaint you can draft. It's a catch 22, a total stalemate where your only option is to spin your wheels. Without any practical way forwards, it seems like most people just default to complaining online as a way to vent their frustration towards Facebook's oblique victory.
To be honest, I don't really care about studies, let alone Facebook's own studies. I've seen enough.
Life immediately became less depressing after leaving social media for good. Because my family, especially my cousins, use Facebook and Instagram for communication I'm still forced to use them to a minimal extent. When I do use them, I don't see a lot of happy people. In fact I see a lot of signs of mental instability in the profiles that these two sites want me to see and friend/follow. Lots of narcissism.
[+] [-] totalretention|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] lalaland1125|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tvanantwerp|4 years ago|reply
And since when do teens care about the disapproval of adults? When I was a kid, video games were the terrible thing. I didn't know any kids who bought into that narrative—we knew they were harmless fun and kept playing.
[+] [-] Forbo|4 years ago|reply
I still struggle with this idea, and have been working to overcome feeling immense guilt when I take some time to blow off steam playing a game for a few hours.
[+] [-] cookingmyserver|4 years ago|reply
But if they are telling you social media will make you feel bad about yourself, and you actually are feeling bad about yourself, you are likely to say.. yeah that is probably right. It allows them to cast their insecurities on to "Social Media" and say "I feel this way because of X". Otherwise where are these feelings coming from? Am I really a loser?
[+] [-] joe_the_user|4 years ago|reply
This is kind of argument by stereotype. Of course teens are impact by media.
[+] [-] savanaly|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Forbo|4 years ago|reply
My daughter is getting to the age where some of her friends are starting to get smartphones, so I'm trying to sort out what will actually be best for her long-term development. I don't want her to be socially stunted, but I also don't want her to expose her to something that could be detrimental to her mental well-being.
In an ideal world, these kinds of networks would be based on open, federated platforms a la Mastodon, Pixelfed, etc. As it stands I don't feel comfortable trusting the advertising industry to determine how these things should be run.
[0]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28812310
Edit: As pointed out by another poster, FB pays NPR, even further muddling the waters. Aaaaaggggghhhhh
[+] [-] zenmaster10665|4 years ago|reply
Like it or not some entity or group need to be responsible for handling illegal and dangerous content.
As to the article, yeah NPR receives money from a lot of places. Is anyone asking about the motivation of NYT, WSJ, etc? Just trying to remain open minded about motives on all sides!
[+] [-] xvector|4 years ago|reply
IMO there's not much you can do here. If all her friends are using Insta and she wants to too, she'll have one whether you like it or not.
The only difference is whether you'll know about it, but even that is up for question because many teens create secondary Insta accounts explicitly for the purpose of avoiding their parents' watchful eyes.
[+] [-] tayo42|4 years ago|reply
I also remeber everything being bad for my well being as a teen. Magazines and photoshop were the big thing, now it's just Instagram I guess. There's no shortage of ways to mess with a kids self esteem. Why single out tech and social media? What about sats and college admissions, and sports?
[+] [-] worrycue|4 years ago|reply
Of course this will never happens.
[+] [-] quotemstr|4 years ago|reply
Public opinion is important to various interests. Don't you think they'd try to manipulate it? Don't you think that astroturf campaigns on social media would be effective in driving narratives? Tons and tons and tons of internet sentiment these days is one influence op or another, and it's immediately obvious when you find a community where sentiment is organic: the difference is night and day, like between Bud Light and a great craft beer.
[+] [-] throwaway_1237|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Calvin02|4 years ago|reply
Your point would be stronger if you attacked her arguments directly.
[+] [-] crvdgc|4 years ago|reply
> Academic achievement (n= 2,020) was obtained from administrative records providing the end-of-grade standardized test scores for reading and math for the 2014–2015 school year.
> School belonging (n= 2,104) was assessed with the six-item Psychological Sense of School Membership23 self-report scale of school membership (e.g., I feel like a real part of my school; People at my school are friendly to me; [0] Not at all true to [5] very true), α= 0.84.
> Conduct problems (n= 2,103) were assessed using the 26-item Problem Behavior Frequency Scale24 of behavioral aggression and violence in the last 30 days (e.g., In the last 30 days, how many times have you …skipped school; stolen something from another student; [0] Never, [1] 1–2 times, [2] 3–5 times, [3] 6–9 times, [4] 10–19 times, and [5] 20+ times). This scale was converted into a count of reported problems (binary for each item rated >1 then summed).
> Psychological distress (n=2,104) was assessed using the six-item Kessler Psychological Distress Scale25 to measure the frequency of participants’ feelings of distress over the past month (e.g., During the past 30 days… about how often did you feel worthless; about how often did feel restless or fidgety? [0] None of the time to [4] all of the time), α= 0.66.
> General physical health (n= 2,097) was assessed with an item from the Add Health General Health and Diet survey26 (i.e., In general, how is your health? [0] Poor to [4] excellent).
I find it not surprising that having a social media account is not statistically related to the results of these measurements. And I suspect for example, being exposed to online sexual contents will also not affect as well. When talking about these things, I tend to be skeptical of behaviorism and feel like a more nuanced methodology should be taken.
[0]: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7570431/
[+] [-] wombatpm|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jsean2004|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] elliekelly|4 years ago|reply
At the very least an editors note disclosing such a substantial conflict ought to be at the top of the page, not the bottom. This really colors my opinion of NPR’s editorial and ethical standards.
[+] [-] throwaway908|4 years ago|reply
“I've been covering kids + tech since ~2007. The Art of Screen Time pubbed in 2018. I've spoken on these topics at Aspen Ideas, Atlantic Fest, Apple, Google, SXSW. Collaborated with Mozilla. Adam's startup was acquired by Facebook in 2019. He works in hardware.”
[+] [-] Forbo|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dan-robertson|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] JohnJamesRambo|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] paulpauper|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|4 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] prossercj|4 years ago|reply
I'm not a huge fan of Facebook (been off the platform since 2012), but these are great ideas, especially the last one. It's refreshing in the midst of all the doom.
[+] [-] markenqualitaet|4 years ago|reply
If the research we got is the best we can realistically get, this author is making a dishonest and misleading argument.
[+] [-] gandutraveler|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|4 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] unknown|4 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] pelagicAustral|4 years ago|reply
At one point, escaping the negativity of it was enough, these days you're plastered with its toxicity even when not being a part it.
'no such thing as bad publicity' I guess.
[+] [-] PragmaticPulp|4 years ago|reply
Most people I know have Facebook accounts and use sparingly to keep up with friends, family, and hobby groups. For the majority of users, the realities of Facebook are relatively boring. Nothing like the hyper-dramatic portrayal of social media as a "threat to our democracy" or an incurable, society-destroying addiction.
I think traditional media is overplaying their hand by cherry-picking the most problematic Facebook users and trying to tell everyone that those rare edge cases are actually the norm on Facebook. These stories are extremely popular with people who don't use Facebook because they validate their decision in an almost self-congratulatory manner. Everyone likes being told they made the right decision, so reading stories that Facebook is evil is some nice validation for someone who happens to fall into the non-Facebook camp.
Meanwhile, I think the general public is going to tire of these hyper-dramatic Facebook stories. The anti-Facebook news stories are starting to feel like an exaggerated moral panic relative to the boring realities of the average person's Facebook experience.
I am, however, concerned about the second-order effects of this new anti-Facebook culture war. What, exactly, do people expect to come of all of these calls for more regulation of speech on the internet? It's starting to feel like the tech communities are being tricked into rallying behind calls for more government intervention and censorship of speech on the internet, which is not something I would have predicted a decade ago.
[+] [-] rickspencer3|4 years ago|reply
That said, the article makes what I think is an important point, that social media is not universally negative, it has some positive effects for some people. I usually use the word "cancer" to describe my attitude to Facebook and Twitter, and why I won't use it, but that is intentional hyperbole to stop further discussion.
[+] [-] dominik-2020|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] 0des|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] smoldesu|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|4 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] ravenstine|4 years ago|reply
Life immediately became less depressing after leaving social media for good. Because my family, especially my cousins, use Facebook and Instagram for communication I'm still forced to use them to a minimal extent. When I do use them, I don't see a lot of happy people. In fact I see a lot of signs of mental instability in the profiles that these two sites want me to see and friend/follow. Lots of narcissism.
[+] [-] zenmaster10665|4 years ago|reply