p24. Teens are about twice as likely to state that Instagram improves their mental health than to state that it harms it.
p28. Teens who were already unsatisfied with their mental health tend to think Instagram harms their mental health more than teens who are satisfied with their mental health. Still, teens who are not satisfied with their mental health (in the USA) are more likely to think Instagram is a positive influence on mental health than a negative one. This is not true in the UK.
If you're the kind of person who hates when statistics are abused for a narrative, this should be something you dislike. The "damning internal documents" actually show that 80% of teens have a neutral or positive reaction to Instagram, and teens are two times more likely to have a positive reaction than a negative one.
Zuckerberg's comments about Instagram having an overall positive effect on teen mental health look a lot less like an obvious lie from this angle.
My personal opinion/guess: Instagram and social media does deliver harmful content to some people and can have negative effects on people's mental health. However, in the discussion we've been having this week, every possible positive effect has been discounted to 0 value. That's not really fair, doesn't reflect the actual results of the leaked studies, and certainly doesn't match my anecdotal experience using social media (including fbook, reddit, hn and insta).
Does Instagram, knowing this information, have any obligations when making choices that affect teen's mental health? Would making choices which negatively affect teen's mental health be an ethical action? One such choice could be segmenting user's by mental health for the purpose of advertisement. Is such a segmentation ethical? What if doing so increases Instagram's profit (say for example teens who struggle are more susceptible to ads), does that change your answer? Should that change Instagram's answer?
My point is that we are capable and obliged to dive deeply into these questions. 22% of teens[p24] of a total 22M teens(DAU)[1] are negatively affected by Instagram. This is 4.1 million people - not a small number. By stopping short and simply saying teens are twice as likely to benefit than suffer ignores the 4.1 million teens who are suffering. I'm not sure they take much solace that 8.2 million feel better off.
You're right and Facebook should be taking action to reduce the negative effects their products are having on teens.
I have no idea if any of the recommendations at the end of the study were actually put into action.
To me a charitable interpretation of the tone of this presentation, which focuses on highlighting negative outcomes rather than celebrating positive outcomes, was to identify areas for improvement. Again, interpreting charitably, this means the company is interested in identifying and reducing negative impacts.
Again, I don't know if they ever made any of these changes. I would like to see more transparency from the company.
Instagram certainly has an ethical obligation to act on this and improve the situation.
At the time that I left Instagram in early 2020, there were more people working on improving wellbeing, particularly for teens, than working on trying to improve engagement. I wasn't specifically tasked to work on well-being, but like all engineers working on recommendations I was required to work with wellbeing and completely address all well-being concerns before shipping anything.
Yes. I felt I was swimming against the currents and wanted this opinion to exist in separate space from the rest of the opinions I express on this site.
Love how media consistently ignores male struggles with body dysmorphia even though it is just as big an issue for them as for females. Just look at how many men know take steroids nowadays, and the sad part is most people aren't aware that these people are even taking steroids and think it is naturally achievable body type. I have had conversations with people who are unwilling to believe even the Rock is on something. Lets keep watching the suicide rates climb for the lost boys as we cry about the slightest affront to women. Boys are held responsible for the oppression of women, which they weren't even alive to remember, and inherent none of the privilege or benefits. Male dysmorphia is ignored or supported (i.e. big dick energy), Male on Male rape is a joke (don't drop the soap), Female on Male rape is sex (look up snl Pete Davidson & Rounda Rousey), Female on Male domestic violence doesn't exist (Duluth model), Mens rights is sexist, Male virginity is toxic (incel), Male exclusive groups or friendships are boys clubs, Male perceived sexual failure is to be mocked (cuck), Male feminity is a weakness (soy boy), and a Male's duty is to protect females.
Sick and tired of this world. Hope somebody else has the energy to fight, because I know I don't.
I'm not really onboard with everything you say, but:
> Male virginity is toxic (incel)
This is the one that gets to me the most.
Being involutary celibate, or even just having a dry run for a long time, is kind of like hell for a man. I'm not sure if women are capable of just appreciating how painful it is (judging by comments I read on line, they think it's a joke). Even men who have regular sex don't understand it, or quickly forget what it was like.
> Male feminity is a weakness (soy boy), and a Male's duty is to protect females.
These are not bad things. Male's duty is to protect. Not females as a class: the females and children in your family (wife, sister, mother).
In fact, this is the thing that gives meaning to your life. If you're not capable of protecting your family, what are you good for? I'm not saying this as an attack. I'm saying that this is the internal voice in every man's head.
First of all, there's plenty of whores if you think sex is a human right. Prostitution is the oldest profession. If we normalize sex work, people can meet demand without getting shamed. Who's trying to do that? Mostly feminists if you ask me.
It's absurd how much people deny PED [1] use. It's pervasive and an open secret in basically any context where men are shirtless: actors, models, MMA fighters, bodybuilders, etc. Even law enforcement and firefighters.
The closest someone like The Rock gets to admitting using them starts with "one time in college...". When even his use is a debate, good luck convincing someone that a slightly smaller actor gaining 25 lbs of muscle in a few months isn't normal. As they happily tell you in interviews, gaining muscle like that is just a matter of working out 6 hours a day and only eating broccoli, chicken, and rice.
1. "Steroids" isn't very accurate. Other things like HGH and SARMs are common, and steroids these days would often be called "testosterone replacement".
I don't want to argue that these aren't real problems, but I don't think they're universal, and there are settings where people aren't out to insult and attack one another.
Additionally, if you can become part of a supportive social circle it is much easier to have an attitude like: "There's a lot of trouble in the world, but lets enjoy life where we can and be kind to one another while pushing for positive change where possible."
>Citing his perspective as a parent, Mr. Zuckerberg pledged in his Facebook post his commitment to continuing to research and prioritize the welfare of children, framing their exposure to his products as inevitable. “The reality is that young people use technology,” he wrote. “Rather than ignoring this, technology companies should build experiences that meet their needs while also keeping them safe.”
Without a commitment to screening advertisements and paid partnerships (which are arguably more damaging) for selling ridiculous psuedo-science like 'detox tea' to young women and girls this rings empty. While social media companies remain in the business of selling advertisement space, they can't be trusted to not tell anyone of any age that they aren't good enough in some way; there's simply too much money in it.
Ads for minors are incredible trash. Basically the point of all tv channels that are for kids is to show ads for toys. Even a lot of shows are themselves nothing else than ads for toys. Let a child watch TV for an hour and the only thing that will happen is that they will come with a huge list of things they want. It's really sad. I watched a lot of TV when I was a child but it wasn't all made for you to buy licensed merchandise.
It's true that platforms and advertisers can build early brand recognition on young people, but it was always there, it used to be tv mainly,but now with mobile devices, how can this possibly be controlled or regulated?
> Without a commitment to screening advertisements and paid partnerships (which are arguably more damaging) for selling ridiculous psuedo-science like 'detox tea' to young women and girls this rings empty.
Unfortunately. a huge swath of all products marketed to young girls—many from blue chip companies—is stuff like this.
I think the advertisers issues are actually not the biggest issue, and it would actually be in FB's interest for people and government to focus on them.
The summaries of the research on social media and teens that I've heard suggest the largest burden on their mental health is from the way the platforms channel interactions with their peers into feelings of social-exclusion and inadequacy, rather than exploitation by advertisers.
The ads are easy to spot as a problem, because there is a lot of shelling of garbage, but they are just funders. For FB, it's probably easier to change who pays Instagram for engagement, than how they get engagement at all.
With our existing laws there is likely an interpretation of wire fraud that could reach the desired results. Just need a Justice Department with that wants to prioritize that interpretation.
I pretty much like every outcome.
Outcome A) A couple indictments to some small/large advertisers freaks all the other advertisers out and they stop pursuing that kind of platform or offering that kind of service. This outcome exists whether the wire fraud or conspiracy to wire fraud charges are successfully challenged and restricted in appeals court or not.
Outcome B) Massive indictments to advertisers of all sizes as well as the ad platforms effectively stamp out this kind of business as a concept. The criminal nature of the indictment allows for seizure and leaking of all kinds of information supporting the need for greater disruption and reform.
Outcome C) The wire fraud and wire fraud conspiracy statutes are challenged and invalidated. Reducing the role of the government in every day life.
I would have a hard time telling an impressionable young person that it's their fault, though certainly buying any product through an advertisement encourages further advertisement.
In an ideal world we would all have the mental fortitude to dismiss such things but who hasn't had a moment where they felt inferior to others, especially at a young age?
> “ Instagram’s algorithm might suggest more extreme dieting accounts with names such as “Eternally starved,” “I have to be thin” and “I want to be perfect.” “
I know people who cut themselves because of Instagram and not feeling adequate enough. I think there’s a similar version of this with competency for males. The feeling that you will never be good at what you do or that you need to do something to get there just hasn’t been exploited yet.
Are we living in the same reality? This is the vector by which a lot of creepy groups that primarily recruit/exploit young men convince them to join stuff. Literally any time anyone says a greek letter before the word "male" you are seeing that tactic working. We're just in a cultural moment where this has a harder time disguising itself as "normal and healthy interaction with one's peers" than exploiting insecurities about body image among teen girls.
Not as much as you think, most people regard the "Sigma" thing as so stupid that its become a meme that ppl reference ironically. Like if u post a video of somebody doing something really stupid somebody might reply "sigma".
>Thirty-two percent of teen girls said that when they felt bad about their bodies, Instagram made them feel worse
I'm pretty sure the same was true 20 years ago and back then it was mainstream media that made them feel worse.
Are we really going to blame Instgram/FB for every societal problem?
Also just a reminder that most teenagers have migrated to TikTok/Snapchat. Instagram is just celebrities and influencers now while Facebook is for keeping contact with relatives.
> I'm pretty sure the same was true 20 years ago and back then it was mainstream media that made them feel worse.
Probably. Although fat teens used to be very rare. Look at 1950s high school graduation group photos. The combination of the snack food industry and the fat acceptance industry has changed the world. Not for the better.
> I'm pretty sure the same was true 20 years ago and back then it was mainstream media that made them feel worse.
Fashion media, more specifically, and they were targeted for it much the same way Facebook is now, and for the same reason: it was a conscious, commercially engineered and manipulated effect intimately tied to marketing/advertising.
On my first day of house duty, when I started working as a teacher, I found one of my pupils — 12 at the time — watching a video on her school issued device.
The video was made by another child, from some random place on the Internet: a teenage girl in the video, staring at the camera with a bland, vacant smile that looked like she had been lobotomized.
The captions on the video had her asking these question of her audience:
- How old did they think they would be when they died?
- How did they think they will die?
- How would they choose to die if you could control your own death?
It was pretty clear that this was skirting around the idea of suicide, albeit in a fascination-of-the-macabre way I think, rather than explicitly encouraging it. Very creepy though.
Apple iPad. TikTok video, reposted to YouTube. Viewed on my watch, while I was the adult in charge.
> "Ultimately, Instagram is just a vicious messenger. But the cesspool of content fueling it? That comes from us."
I don't particularly like that this article tries to absolve Facebook. OK, maybe Facebook doesn't have any particular line of code "for (user in users) if user.girl: user.show(eating_disorder)" BUT they are getting paid to promote accounts with beauty advertisements, and they know those accounts promote eating disorders. That is clearly not in the public interest.
This body insecurity, besides creating other issues, contributes to the obesity epidemic. Girls and boys who are perfectly healthy weights see these super-thin celebrities and starvation diets, causing them to starve themselves and feel insecure, causing them to binge and develop screwed-up hunger signals.
It goes the other way too: since most people are fat losing weight is seen as a good thing, and people are constantly on a "diet" which they constantly complain about.
It's not just Instagram, it's not even just celebrities, it's a lot of society. A "healthy" human body is neither super skinny not super fat, and a "healthy" human body is actually usually attractive. But a lot of people don't realize.
The amount of filters and video filters out there is crazy in how much they change bodies and the perception of what is an ideal body. The Chinese Olympic swimmer was a recent notable one:
https://www.reddit.com/r/Instagramreality/comments/q27w3w/a_...
Readit News
https://s.wsj.net/public/resources/documents/teen-mental-hea...
p24. Teens are about twice as likely to state that Instagram improves their mental health than to state that it harms it.
p28. Teens who were already unsatisfied with their mental health tend to think Instagram harms their mental health more than teens who are satisfied with their mental health. Still, teens who are not satisfied with their mental health (in the USA) are more likely to think Instagram is a positive influence on mental health than a negative one. This is not true in the UK.
If you're the kind of person who hates when statistics are abused for a narrative, this should be something you dislike. The "damning internal documents" actually show that 80% of teens have a neutral or positive reaction to Instagram, and teens are two times more likely to have a positive reaction than a negative one.
Zuckerberg's comments about Instagram having an overall positive effect on teen mental health look a lot less like an obvious lie from this angle.
My personal opinion/guess: Instagram and social media does deliver harmful content to some people and can have negative effects on people's mental health. However, in the discussion we've been having this week, every possible positive effect has been discounted to 0 value. That's not really fair, doesn't reflect the actual results of the leaked studies, and certainly doesn't match my anecdotal experience using social media (including fbook, reddit, hn and insta).
It seems to me a case of a drug addict saying that drugs are good for himself. Or an obese person saying that Pizza helps him cope with life.
Is there a better way to independently measure the mental health effect of a single variable on a person's life than just asking them?
Does Instagram, knowing this information, have any obligations when making choices that affect teen's mental health? Would making choices which negatively affect teen's mental health be an ethical action? One such choice could be segmenting user's by mental health for the purpose of advertisement. Is such a segmentation ethical? What if doing so increases Instagram's profit (say for example teens who struggle are more susceptible to ads), does that change your answer? Should that change Instagram's answer?
My point is that we are capable and obliged to dive deeply into these questions. 22% of teens[p24] of a total 22M teens(DAU)[1] are negatively affected by Instagram. This is 4.1 million people - not a small number. By stopping short and simply saying teens are twice as likely to benefit than suffer ignores the 4.1 million teens who are suffering. I'm not sure they take much solace that 8.2 million feel better off.
[1] https://www.wsj.com/articles/facebook-knows-instagram-is-tox...
I have no idea if any of the recommendations at the end of the study were actually put into action.
To me a charitable interpretation of the tone of this presentation, which focuses on highlighting negative outcomes rather than celebrating positive outcomes, was to identify areas for improvement. Again, interpreting charitably, this means the company is interested in identifying and reducing negative impacts.
Again, I don't know if they ever made any of these changes. I would like to see more transparency from the company.
At the time that I left Instagram in early 2020, there were more people working on improving wellbeing, particularly for teens, than working on trying to improve engagement. I wasn't specifically tasked to work on well-being, but like all engineers working on recommendations I was required to work with wellbeing and completely address all well-being concerns before shipping anything.
Deleted Comment
Deleted Comment
Deleted Comment
Sick and tired of this world. Hope somebody else has the energy to fight, because I know I don't.
> Male virginity is toxic (incel)
This is the one that gets to me the most.
Being involutary celibate, or even just having a dry run for a long time, is kind of like hell for a man. I'm not sure if women are capable of just appreciating how painful it is (judging by comments I read on line, they think it's a joke). Even men who have regular sex don't understand it, or quickly forget what it was like.
> Male feminity is a weakness (soy boy), and a Male's duty is to protect females.
These are not bad things. Male's duty is to protect. Not females as a class: the females and children in your family (wife, sister, mother).
In fact, this is the thing that gives meaning to your life. If you're not capable of protecting your family, what are you good for? I'm not saying this as an attack. I'm saying that this is the internal voice in every man's head.
The closest someone like The Rock gets to admitting using them starts with "one time in college...". When even his use is a debate, good luck convincing someone that a slightly smaller actor gaining 25 lbs of muscle in a few months isn't normal. As they happily tell you in interviews, gaining muscle like that is just a matter of working out 6 hours a day and only eating broccoli, chicken, and rice.
1. "Steroids" isn't very accurate. Other things like HGH and SARMs are common, and steroids these days would often be called "testosterone replacement".
Additionally, if you can become part of a supportive social circle it is much easier to have an attitude like: "There's a lot of trouble in the world, but lets enjoy life where we can and be kind to one another while pushing for positive change where possible."
Without a commitment to screening advertisements and paid partnerships (which are arguably more damaging) for selling ridiculous psuedo-science like 'detox tea' to young women and girls this rings empty. While social media companies remain in the business of selling advertisement space, they can't be trusted to not tell anyone of any age that they aren't good enough in some way; there's simply too much money in it.
If I was your vice emperor, I would agree btw.
Unfortunately. a huge swath of all products marketed to young girls—many from blue chip companies—is stuff like this.
The summaries of the research on social media and teens that I've heard suggest the largest burden on their mental health is from the way the platforms channel interactions with their peers into feelings of social-exclusion and inadequacy, rather than exploitation by advertisers.
The ads are easy to spot as a problem, because there is a lot of shelling of garbage, but they are just funders. For FB, it's probably easier to change who pays Instagram for engagement, than how they get engagement at all.
I pretty much like every outcome.
Outcome A) A couple indictments to some small/large advertisers freaks all the other advertisers out and they stop pursuing that kind of platform or offering that kind of service. This outcome exists whether the wire fraud or conspiracy to wire fraud charges are successfully challenged and restricted in appeals court or not.
Outcome B) Massive indictments to advertisers of all sizes as well as the ad platforms effectively stamp out this kind of business as a concept. The criminal nature of the indictment allows for seizure and leaking of all kinds of information supporting the need for greater disruption and reform.
Outcome C) The wire fraud and wire fraud conspiracy statutes are challenged and invalidated. Reducing the role of the government in every day life.
I like every outcome here.
In an ideal world we would all have the mental fortitude to dismiss such things but who hasn't had a moment where they felt inferior to others, especially at a young age?
Dead Comment
I know people who cut themselves because of Instagram and not feeling adequate enough. I think there’s a similar version of this with competency for males. The feeling that you will never be good at what you do or that you need to do something to get there just hasn’t been exploited yet.
Not exactly. The pickup artist community and the alt-right use alpha and beta a lot, but the "sigma" stuff is just pure parody.
I'm pretty sure the same was true 20 years ago and back then it was mainstream media that made them feel worse.
Are we really going to blame Instgram/FB for every societal problem?
Also just a reminder that most teenagers have migrated to TikTok/Snapchat. Instagram is just celebrities and influencers now while Facebook is for keeping contact with relatives.
Probably. Although fat teens used to be very rare. Look at 1950s high school graduation group photos. The combination of the snack food industry and the fat acceptance industry has changed the world. Not for the better.
Fashion media, more specifically, and they were targeted for it much the same way Facebook is now, and for the same reason: it was a conscious, commercially engineered and manipulated effect intimately tied to marketing/advertising.
But yeah, people will blame anyone and anything rather than take (and learn) responsibility, so don't expect anything to be solved anytime soon.
The video was made by another child, from some random place on the Internet: a teenage girl in the video, staring at the camera with a bland, vacant smile that looked like she had been lobotomized.
The captions on the video had her asking these question of her audience:
- How old did they think they would be when they died?
- How did they think they will die?
- How would they choose to die if you could control your own death?
It was pretty clear that this was skirting around the idea of suicide, albeit in a fascination-of-the-macabre way I think, rather than explicitly encouraging it. Very creepy though.
Apple iPad. TikTok video, reposted to YouTube. Viewed on my watch, while I was the adult in charge.
"You can go kill yourself and others, just don't use our platform for any content about it."
I don't particularly like that this article tries to absolve Facebook. OK, maybe Facebook doesn't have any particular line of code "for (user in users) if user.girl: user.show(eating_disorder)" BUT they are getting paid to promote accounts with beauty advertisements, and they know those accounts promote eating disorders. That is clearly not in the public interest.
It goes the other way too: since most people are fat losing weight is seen as a good thing, and people are constantly on a "diet" which they constantly complain about.
It's not just Instagram, it's not even just celebrities, it's a lot of society. A "healthy" human body is neither super skinny not super fat, and a "healthy" human body is actually usually attractive. But a lot of people don't realize.
Here's a recent video filter: https://www.reddit.com/r/Instagramreality/comments/q44txx/do...
Especially with the popular influencers doing this and when you see most of the comments impressed with how the "exercise" is helping vs how it's really a filter. https://www.reddit.com/r/Instagramreality/comments/pwvs83/re...