Mark Zuckerberg didn't invent social networking. If it wasn't facebook, it would be some other website. Social media doesn't cause people to envy others or engage in behaviors that you don't approve of. Human nature does. The problem here lies in the collective mirror.
I've seen no evidence that Mark Zuckerberg is anything other than a normal ivy league type guy. I'm sure that he hears dozens of positive things about facebook every single day - it helped someone meet their spouse, connect with old friends, solve a problem. It's likely that in his view he's doing something to make the world a better place. Some may focus more on the negative aspects of facebook, and that's fair. But there doesn't seem to be any reason to question his character.
> Social media doesn't cause people to envy others or engage in behaviors that you don't approve of. Human nature does.
That's precisely what's in dispute here.
Different social media applications yield different results. Some of us believe that facebook is designed to cause envy, woe, and want in order to sell.
The thing about Usenet is that it trained you how to discuss things in public. It is a rhetoric laboratory. It's very useful learning to harden yourself to envy, woe and want. Eventually, such things become a mirror and if you don't like what you see, change it.
You can take out Zuckerberg and it would change things only at the margins.
People are constantly trying to figure out how to be attractive, and they constantly look out for who is attractive around them. The embers to produce social media websites like Facebook are already there, Zuckerberg was only the match.
Zuckerberg not creating Facebook doesn't change the fact that we're in an era where singers and socialites are celebrities, as opposed to the previous era, where society was more enamoured with intellectuals like Einstein and Haber, or the era before that where people looked up to generals like Ulysses Grant for unifying the nation.
Facebook is a product of today's decadence, rather than the other way around.
Would Facebook fit in a society with attitudes from (my take):
1. 1700's England? Nope, people are too serious back then.
2. 1000's Baghdad? Yes, in a world singers and celebrities and everyone wants to be attractive.
3. 800's Baghdad? Nope. You'd lose your head.
4. 300's Rome? Why yes, breads and circuses everywhere, why not another distraction?
5. 200BC Rome? Hardy people don't use Facebook much.
Here's a nice short book talking about these cycles.
"1. 1700's England? Nope, people are too serious back then."
I found the perspective in your post interesting, but I have to suggest that you research 'coffee shops' in London in the earlier 1700s. They declined towards the end of that century for reasons that could be quite interesting.
Are you really comparing social media to cigarettes and guns? Even if social media has downsides (virtually everything in life does) it's a silly comparison.
At no point is evidence presented in the link that shows that social media leads to clinical depression and suicide. Once again an awful and incorrect comparison.
hacker news is a form of social media so that makes it just as bad as guns, cigs and heroin. Ycombinator and the people who run it are just as evil as kim jong un.
> Researchers have proposed a new phenomenon called “Facebook depression,” defined as depression that develops when preteens and teens spend a great deal of time on social media sites, such as Facebook, and then begin to exhibit classic symptoms of depression. Acceptance by and contact with peers is an important element of adolescent life. The intensity of the online world is thought to be a factor that may trigger depression in some adolescents. As with offline depression, preadolescents and adolescents who suffer from Facebook depression are at risk for social isolation and sometimes turn to risky Internet sites and blogs for “help” that may promote substance abuse, unsafe sexual practices, or aggressive or self-destructive behaviors.
Clinical depression isn't a requirement. Exhibiting symptoms of depression (as stated) is all that is necessary. Clinical just means it's recurring at a regular interval.
>adolescents who suffer from Facebook depression are at risk for social isolation and sometimes turn to risky Internet sites and blogs for “help” that may promote substance abuse, unsafe sexual practices, or aggressive or self-destructive behaviors.
How is that remotely the same as actual depression? It's an insult to people who suffer from this medical condition.
Those aren't a list of symptoms, but instead an outcome what happens given typical depression symptoms coupled with teen behavior (and not knowing how to handle the feeling). Actually, social isolation is a fairly typical symptom of depression. Substance abuse and so on are often correlated as well.
Looking for the study itself (which I can't seem to find), but the article says something along the lines of "showing symptoms of depression". Symptoms of depression are often caused by depression.
No, it's not an insult at all. The biggest insult to depression sufferers is not recognizing it as a condition or implying that they are something other than depressed.
Edit: I'm sorry; perhaps you are simply not understanding the article. Is English your primary language?
If it was depression then it would be called depression, not "facebook depression". None of the symptoms you listed are actual symptoms of "facebook depression". Perhaps you forgot your reading glasses?
Yes--Hacker News is a form of social media. I don't want to point out all the differences between the sites.
I can only comment on my own phyche after being on the two sites. I don't feel good after being on FB. I've gotten into the habit of deativating my account Monday-Friday. I keep it open on the weekends--just in case? So far nothing, but I've never been a popular person.
On the other hand, I don't feel bad after being on HN. Yes--like any site, I can only take it in small doses. And yes--if it changed up too much from its current format, I would delete my account.
I use the Internet for information, and enjoyment. FB just brings up too many bad memories, or just puts me in a weird mood. I don't think I've evolved enough to like FB? Were we, as monkeys, ever designed to see so many other monkeys?
He may not have, but just because it's just another and the most dominant flavor of the addiction does not mean it is not as OP described. He's essentially the head of a psychological drug dealing organization.
I'm not saying Facebook couldn't be changed to not serve that purpose, but the whole nature of Fb leads to people envying idealized illusions of people's lives.
It also does not allow people to move forward because you are always reminded of and connected to the past. I don't think that is a topic that has received anywhere near enough attention. The people that are bad for you are and will forever haunt you through facebook. It really needs more study and I would not be surprised on bit if it were shown to facilitate things like substance abuse relapse and poor choices.
Tools shape behaviors and amplify effects, so I don't think tools automatically get a pass.
Further, I think this is bunk:
> If it wasn't facebook, it would be some other website.
This can be used to justify pretty much anything. "Somebody'd be selling this heroin. Might as well be me." Or, less obviously: cigarettes, fossil fuels, and junk food.
If good people to refuse to do something harmful, it will be done less well, hopefully causing less harm. Whether or not Mark Zuckerberg is better or worse than the average ivy leaguer doesn't seem relevant. What matters is that he's the one with the power to change what Facebook is doing, and he's the one who profits most from it.
>But there doesn't seem to be any reason to question his character.
I guess that depends on how you view facebook itself. Advertising is one thing, but I find the model of encouraging people to share their personal information for one purpose, then surreptitiously monetizing it by selling it to others to be downright slimy.
I've seen no evidence that Mark Zuckerberg is anything other than a normal ivy league type guy. I'm sure that he hears dozens of positive things about facebook every single day - it helped someone meet their spouse, connect with old friends, solve a problem. It's likely that in his view he's doing something to make the world a better place. Some may focus more on the negative aspects of facebook, and that's fair. But there doesn't seem to be any reason to question his character.