Remix.run Logo
fsflover a day ago

> I have tried to find good scientific evidence that shows that social media is a net negative for kids and or adults. I have been unable to do so.

Facebook knows Instagram is toxic for teen girls, company documents show (wsj.com)

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28523688

Facebook proven to negatively impact mental health (tau.ac.il)

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32938622

Testimony to House committee by former Facebook executive Tim Kendall (house.gov)

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24579498

cscurmudgeon a day ago | parent [-]

See this is just thing the commenter you are replying to is saying.

Just read the comments in your second link tearing apart the study.

Given the replication crisis in psychology, the authors make bad choices in the experiment design that are not justifiable in 2022.

fsflover a day ago | parent [-]

How about my third link?

rpdillon a day ago | parent [-]

I'm getting a 502 error trying to access the original content. It doesn't appear to be a scientific study, but rather a testimony from a Facebook executive talking about how they disregarded user safety in the development of algorithms that increased engagement. That's not quite what I'm looking for, though. I'd like to see something examining the effects of those behaviors on the population.

I will say that the lengths the executive goes to to compare social media with tobacco degrade the quality of the argument in my opinion; science tends to ask the question and then seek the answer. Arguments like this seem to start with the answer (it's like Big Tobacco) and then construct the argument accordingly.

fsflover a day ago | parent [-]

> I'd like to see something examining the effects of those behaviors on the population.

In the testimony, they explain it:

We took a page from Big Tobacco’s playbook, working to make our offering addictive at the outset.

Allowing for misinformation, conspiracy theories, and fake news to flourish were like Big Tobacco’s bronchodilators, which allowed the cigarette smoke to cover more surface area of the lungs.

https://web.archive.org/web/20210318063530/https://energycom...

cscurmudgeon 21 hours ago | parent [-]

Still no science though. One exec's views in a large company doesn't equal science.

If exec's views are science/truth. Then I bet you would have found execs in tobacco companies who thought they were doing good.

fsflover 14 hours ago | parent [-]

True, it's not science. It is however the intention.