Hacker News Reader

I think FB is probably bad, but I've also noticed that people have a tendency to blame delusional mental illnesses on whatever a person was going through/up to at the time it onset when it is often more like a timer went off.

Yes, most likely the ilness would be there even without Facebook. But the platform enables some destructive behavior while in the real life, I hope, more productive support structures could exist.

While mental illness is something you might be biologically predisposed, the outcome can vary wildly with or without support structures and good help. And I think on this end Facebook is profoundly destructive.

Yes, most likely the ilness would be there even without Facebook. But the platform enables some destructive behavior while in the real life, I hope, more productive support structures could exist.

But, realistically, is the choice social media or real life? Or is choice between one part of the Internet and another part of the Internet? Which is to say, what are you talking about doing? Ending Facebook in particular? Ending "Social Media" but not say, youtube?

So just give up? Do nothing? If we think these things are harmful and those harms outweigh the good, then we should do something.

Even if it is just a higher tax rate for Social Media companies to help pay for the clean up of the damage. Sin taxes work, but in this case you'd have to apply them to the real customers, advertisers, somehow.

So just give up? Do nothing?

Provide help on a variety of levels (peers, professionals, etc). The idea that mechanical restriction social networking could be the answer is just misguided.

And it's not social media that are doing the damage but the interaction of social media and those with existing problems.

If we think these things are harmful and those harms outweigh the good, then we should do something.

I can see many people saying Facebook is "bad" in some way but often the criticism are completely contradictory. Facebook allows too much free speech or Facebook allows too little free speech. Peonple with both criticism "agree" on "harm" until they have to actually do something, then the absurdity appears.

Even if it is just a higher tax rate for Social Media companies to help pay for the clean up of the damage.

What's a "social media company"? Any company that let's people communicate? Social media is just blogging, message, forums and so-forth, put together in a roughly unified way. Acting like it's a single thing that can be managed and controlled seems plausible but is impossible if you think about it for a minute.

I think you have very good points, and, honestly, I have no answer for them. I see the tension between too much/too little censorship.

And obviously, the blame is not only on FB, there is an ecosystem of websites that feed into each other. I mentioned Youtube as also having had a big role in this.

I also see their usefulness. But the damage they are doing needs to be tackled somehow. And me not having a solution does not mean there is none. Surely other, smarter people can find one.

One thing to tackle would be the algorithm and the way it feeds into this addiction. It obviously is good for FB but bad for the user. And absolutely no one says... "Gee, I so love that FB is addictive." You could get the benefits of FB without the feed that pulls you the most it can to stay.

FB could also downrank _all_ political or polarizing content (hah, came to agree with HN on this, incredible). Obviously, FB is not a place to have reasoned discussion about politics and news and things of consistence. So downgrade them in the algo, and then the self-enforcing feedback loop should tone down in this area.

It's a tough problem but one that exists and cannot be ignored.

A person's mental illness can have drastically different outcomes depending on who they are surrounded by. Even before Facebook there were plenty of cases where people exploited the emotionally and socially naive or unstable, for their own gain or amusement. I worry social media can enable something similar.

But it's really not social media in particular. It seems pretty clear that when delusions are coming on, a person will seek out those who humor those delusions. If you're talking pre-social media Internet, you'd have the person on BBSes and email lists for whatever they find appealing.

And it's worth considering that the situation isn't some mentally ill people and some opportunistic/predatory people. You have a mixture of delusion and predation over a substantial population and you have the ability of people in these groups to seek each other out. Maybe if you shut down usenet and everything past that, you could stop this phenomena, at the expense of more or less shutting down the Internet. But otherwise, the discussions blaming social media in particular for this stuff seem misguided. Social media is about connecting with people you know whereas "socially resonant insanity" or whatever wants to call it, involves find new friends and new facts.

But there are healthy connections and unhealthy connections. Is it possible that there might be a way to encourage the healthy ones and discourage the unhealthy ones?

Just because social media works the way it does now doesn't mean it has to always work like that. These things are constructed by humans and we can change them if we want. There is nothing intrinsic in Facebook or YouTube that says they must promote "engagement" above all else.

Maybe they might make a few less dollars, wouldn't that be sad.

But there are healthy connections and unhealthy connections. Is it possible that there might be a way to encourage the healthy ones and discourage the unhealthy ones?

There has been talk of Facebook actually using algorithms to make mental health interventions. The problem is that I don't think that many users find some automatically generated warning credible.

Just because social media works the way it does now doesn't mean it has to always work like that.

Either you something like a single, state approved connection system or each social media network will serve up anything that users will buy. That's both because of the profit motive and because someone, somewhere thinks X sort of content is totally cool, both factor are in play. What's the plan to counter that?

They can make the interventions much more subtle and palatable than just a dry warning. Subtly changing the feed to nudge the person on another path could do this. It is manipulation, but maybe some people need it.

Adding fuel to a fire makes it burn hotter, even if it was already there.

This happened to a family member, they had undiagnosed schizophrenia and started posting craaaaaazy stuff on YouTube, got a following of fellow like-minded folk that only made things worse until it all exploded into a huge melt down / insane asylum situation. Crazy times.

Replace "Facebook" with "language" here ...

> And I see how [language] is exacerbating this. I see how these things are poisoning his mind, fantasies weaved by other mentally ill people. It's just sad, when I thought about it and dawned on me most of those _wild_ conspiracy theories are people that need help feeding each other's sickness.

> I think it is harmful and [language] does induce bad states in people that would otherwise be better, or at least... Surrounded by better support systems. But I still think it's not _just_ [language]. It's a confluence of factors.

Wow this is such a bad faith attempt at exonerating Facebook that I don't know where to even start.

No the issue isn't language, the issue is Facebook way of pushing outrage-inducing content and isolating people in bubbles of ever more radicalized content. Spend some time on https://www.reddit.com/r/QAnonCasualties/ and come back tell us how the problem is "language" and not social medias.

But without language, how could they communicate these harmful ideas? People use language to spread hate speech. Even the code base of Facebook is written in a language. This is why we need a doubleplusgood conlang alternative like Newspeak! We can then unfollow crimethink terrorinfo and hatespeak. Facebook is just a plusvictim here of enemy agitprop.

Facebook is so harmlessly impotent, it has not even managed to get me to create an account.

You know, maybe spend less time on QAnon-anything.

The fact it is impotent for you does not mean it is impotent in general. That is my exact point. I have hardly any problem with FB usage, but I see many people dear to me that do.

I imagined that this is a problem that will go by itself. That people will inoculate themselves against conspiracy. But now, I'm not so sure.

Maybe it's not Facebook. Maybe it's society that makes people go crazy?

Humans are not fit to live in a hyper capitalist society. We crave stability.