Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
BLACK FRIDAY DEAL: Trust the World's Fastest VPN with Your Internet Security & Freedom--A Lifetime Subscription of PureVPN at $48 with coupon code "BFRIDAY20" ×
Facebook Social Networks Technology

Sean Parker Unloads on Facebook 'Exploiting' Human Psychology (axios.com) 285

Sean Parker, the founding president of Facebook, spoke to news outlet Axios about the ways social networks have made hundreds of millions of users addicted to their platforms. He said, from the interview: When Facebook was getting going, I had these people who would come up to me and they would say, 'I'm not on social media.' And I would say, 'OK. You know, you will be.' And then they would say, 'No, no, no. I value my real-life interactions. I value the moment. I value presence. I value intimacy.' And I would say, ... 'We'll get you eventually. I don't know if I really understood the consequences of what I was saying, because [of] the unintended consequences of a network when it grows to a billion or 2 billion people and ... it literally changes your relationship with society, with each other ... It probably interferes with productivity in weird ways. God only knows what it's doing to our children's brains. The thought process that went into building these applications, Facebook being the first of them, ... was all about: 'How do we consume as much of your time and conscious attention as possible?' And that means that we need to sort of give you a little dopamine hit every once in a while, because someone liked or commented on a photo or a post or whatever. And that's going to get you to contribute more content, and that's going to get you ... more likes and comments. It's a social-validation feedback loop. He says people like him, and Mark Zuckerberg knew the potential consequences, but they did what they did anyway.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Sean Parker Unloads on Facebook 'Exploiting' Human Psychology

Comments Filter:
  • Sean Parker, it is your fault for creating the thing.
    • Re:Its your fault (Score:4, Interesting)

      by cayenne8 ( 626475 ) on Thursday November 09, 2017 @11:50AM (#55519669) Homepage Journal
      Hm.....I don't get it.

      I've never felt the need to join FB or other social media to date.

      I have no problem interacting and deal with friends and meeting NEW ones in meatspace.

      I guess I've just never felt compelled to being a voluntary part of their product they sell.

      • But you're OK with /.

        I'm not being argumentative, just observant.

        This, too, is social media.

        • This, too, is social media.

          LOL....

          I"ve never considered Slashdot to be social media...it is more of a basic forum you post on...to me more akin to the bulletin boards of old and USENET.

      • Re:Its your fault (Score:5, Insightful)

        by gnick ( 1211984 ) on Thursday November 09, 2017 @12:55PM (#55520147) Homepage

        I've never felt the need to join FB or other social media to date.

        That fix that users get from "Likes" and "Replies" on FB is very similar to the fix you get from "Mods" and "Replies" on /. . A lot of my interaction on FB is discussion of news articles, similar to my interaction on /. . (Yes, some actual headlines make it to FB. On my feed it's CNN, BBC News, or whatever sources my friends post.) I see you post on here all the time - You've got the same bug as the FB users. You just feel superior because you're on a different platform (doing the same thing) and FB bashing is popular here.

        • Re:Its your fault (Score:4, Insightful)

          by citylivin ( 1250770 ) on Thursday November 09, 2017 @03:52PM (#55521479)

          "That fix that users get from "Likes" and "Replies" on FB is very similar to the fix you get from "Mods" and "Replies" on /."

          I disagree personally. From what i understand, facebook is what you say, for narcissists. People who want to see their opinions retweeted or acted upon, in short, people looking for attention. That is not me at all. Personally I don't even read replies on slashdot, because i really don't care to argue with people on the internet. I have what I have to say and that's the end of it. I am just commenting to add something to the discussion, or clarify some point, and primarily to pass time between tasks at work.

          Plus I also think that writing every day is good practice to keep the mind sharp. Facebook to me, as a non user, is what you were always warned about. Posting your personal information on the internet, data collection by advertisers, and profiling by basically anyone (police, employers, co-workers, friends).

          So to sum up, facebook = narcissists and spooks, Slashdot = engineers and technologists who have opinions on things that matter to my job and life.
          A cat picture, that it is someones birthday, or someones IRL political leanings, absolutely do not interest me one bit. I also don't care about your holiday photos or childrens photos.

          It's all just fluff, because people need something to do with their phones. And like TFA says, its designed to be addictive.

      • by Cajun Hell ( 725246 ) on Thursday November 09, 2017 @12:56PM (#55520149) Homepage Journal

        I've never felt the need to join FB or other social media to date.

        And yet, nevertheless, you just posted that thought on social media.

        Check back later to see if you got modded up! Maybe getting some karma points (or replies that agree with you -- they're just as good as upmods!) will get you to come back for more.

        I guess I've just never felt compelled to being a voluntary part of their product they sell.

        Slashdot's advertisers should be unhappy to read this, but considering where they're reading it, I suspect their frowns might be upside-down.

        • Is a discussion board like this really social media? I don't think it is.

        • I've never felt the need to join FB or other social media to date.

          And yet, nevertheless, you just posted that thought on social media.

          Check back later to see if you got modded up! Maybe getting some karma points (or replies that agree with you -- they're just as good as upmods!) will get you to come back for more.

          I guess I've just never felt compelled to being a voluntary part of their product they sell.

          Slashdot's advertisers should be unhappy to read this, but considering where they're reading it, I suspect their frowns might be upside-down.

          Facebook Friends will never mod your post as "TROLL" or "FLAME-BAIT", let alone "OFF-TOPIC" or "REDUNDANT" or "OVERRATED". No negative feedback just thumbs up and smilliefaces and if someone posts that you full of shit you can just block them.

      • Another thing ...

        If you are not engaged in any social media, that disqualifies you from commenting on matter of media, social.

        I'm a techie and there's no way in hell I avoid the shit pile.

        I am unwashed, but experienced.

        • Another thing ...

          If you are not engaged in any social media, that disqualifies you from commenting on matter of media, social.

          Well then, when the conversation palls, it's a good thing I have serial killing to fall back on.

      • It could be an age thing or educational. Most of the people I associate with are my age didn't grow up with the internet or cell phones and have some kind of college education. Most of them do not use facebook on a daily basis.

      • Found the Vegan.
    • Re:Its your fault (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Cajun Hell ( 725246 ) on Thursday November 09, 2017 @12:03PM (#55519775) Homepage Journal
      No, it's We The People's fault, for being drug addicts. Don't blame the dealer.
    • Sean Parker, it is your fault for creating the thing.

      Well... the Winklevoss twins [wikipedia.org] created Facebook and Sean and Mark just stole it. :-)

      I guess "To-may-to, to-mah-to".

    • It's kind of like Mao declaring Khrushchev ideologically impure.

  • by i286NiNJA ( 2558547 ) on Thursday November 09, 2017 @11:51AM (#55519683)

    It might have been addictive for awhile but it's getting pretty dull and feels more like myspace every day. I have a feeling the culture will eventually become dumb and toxic enough that the thing implodes an people will move to some other format for social media. Given Zuckerberg's interest in other social media platforms I have to wonder if he feels the same way.

    I don't have much proof but it's happened to every similar service and website before it.

    • Yeah, I spent about a year on Facebook, and decided most of what people post that I know casually is crap. Those I'm close enough to to email, aren't spamming their friends with such crap, they target info based on what they know the recipient will be interested in and are fine with email. About a year ago, I got fed up with FB entirely and haven't looked back. I signed in once over that time just to see if anything had happened that was of any interest, and found there wasn't a single thing.
      • I find it very useful for staying in touch with old friends and family actually but I think we'll all eventually move to whatever's next. I also love arguing with randos, meme spamming, trolling.

        The Russia thing has taken the fun out of trolling. I can never trust that I'm interacting with an actual moron.

    • > I have a feeling the culture will eventually become dumb and toxic enough that the thing implodes an people will move to some other format for social media.

      If history is any indicator, I sadly concur. Consider the landscape of Social Media "platforms":

      Timeline/History of Social Media [adweek.com]

      --
      I thought Idiocracy (2006) [imdb.com] was supposed to be a political satire and not a mockumentary / documentary / instruction manual ... *facepalm*

    • You're old enough to know the difference between bullshit and wild honey, and so are we.

      All the cheap shots you have for current technology came out of the woodwork for the fucking Internet itself.

      That and, "Rock & roll is the devil's work."

  • by Rick Schumann ( 4662797 ) on Thursday November 09, 2017 @11:54AM (#55519709) Journal
    A distillation of what Sean Parker had to say about Facebook:

    I am become death, the destroyer of worlds.

    Yes, Mister Parker, you have. Facebook is a cancer to humanity, a virulent disease. It should never have been created in the first place, and I for one am glad that I have nothing to do with it.

    ..and NO, you can't find anything about me on Facebook. I don't have an account there, no one I know is allowed to reference me there, and I defy anyone who says different.

    • by Baron_Yam ( 643147 ) on Thursday November 09, 2017 @12:08PM (#55519799)

      >I don't have an account there

      OK.

      > no one I know is allowed to reference me there

      And just how do you enforce that???

      >NO, you can't find anything about me on Facebook.

      So, you haven't heard of shadow profiles, then. Maybe your average Internet user can't find anything on you, but odds are someone at Facebook could look up all sorts of things about you.

      > I defy anyone who says different

      Well... I guess I'm defied, then. Doesn't change much, though. Facebook's still evil, you still shouldn't be confident they don't know a lot about you.

      • Blah blah blah WORDS WORDS WORDS

        There's always at least one of you in the crowd, isn't there?

        Projecting like the damned

        What makes you think I use my real name online, anywhere, ever? What makes you think the people who know me can't be trusted to keep their word? I don't exist on Facebook. Never have, never will. You, on the other hand, are caught in their web, no doubt, and realize you're screwed -- and, no doubt, it burns you that someone else might have escaped your fate. You may as well become an exhibitionist, because you already traded away your privacy and

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by Anonymous Coward

          this is one of the dumbest things i have read here and clearly you have no idea about shadow profiles work.

          Shadow profiles are based off of data provided through people who you interact in real life. that means while you may have never have used your real name online, if one of your real life contacts have then they know about you. this happens when someone with facebook uploads their email or phone contact list, has the app active on any network that you have a device active on. that is the point of facebo

    • by forkfail ( 228161 ) on Thursday November 09, 2017 @12:10PM (#55519803)

      I would be willing to bet a significant amount of money that if were you to sign up with Facebook right now that you would have at least a few dozen friend recommendations that were accurate and reflective not only of your current life, but also, of your associations of several years ago.

    • by DrYak ( 748999 ) on Thursday November 09, 2017 @12:57PM (#55520161) Homepage

      NO, you can't find anything about me on Facebook. I don't have an account there, no one I know is allowed to reference me there

      Yup, you don't have a Facebook profile, and you've politely asked your closest friend to not upload pictures with your face on them to it.
      Good for you.

      The problem is that Facebook will data mine the living shit out of everything it comes by.

      Maybe one person with whom you didn't communicate using throw away accounts (but, e.g.: you mailed using a regular e-mail, all called them with your called-ID visible) had facebook's app installed on their smartphone (and the app will automatically mine any contact details it comes by, including caller list and e-mail addresses auto-added to the replied-to list)

      Maybe someone you don't know personally uploaded a picture of a crowd while you were out in the public without wearing dazzle make-up (forget about usual clothing accessories like sun-glasses, Facebook face recognition system is fine-tuned well enough to be able to recognise you even with these).

      etc.

      Add all these small crumbs of information together over time and facebook ends up having quite some idea about who you are without you or any of your direct friend ever giving out any such information.

      • by DarkOx ( 621550 ) on Thursday November 09, 2017 @02:02PM (#55520665) Journal

        ^^THIS^^

        I resisted facebook for a long time, but ultimately I signed up and created a basic profile, with information about me that is already mostly public and things I would generally want the world to know about me. I keep it pretty impersonal and rarely post about being anywhere or doing anything that isn't documented elsewhere publicly, but at least I get to bring the attention to those things as opposed to attention being on everything else for lack anything else being there.

        Its nice to ask your friends not to tag you in stuff but sooner or later someone forgets, making an honest mistake, after that facebook's photo recognition will start to suggest you everywhere you appear. Combine that will all their other data mining and yes they know a lot about you and publish a lot about you whether you like it or not.

        At some point you have to make a decision do YOU want some control over the message about you that gets put out by facebook or do you want to continue you protested at the cost of not having that control? If you do you have to create an account, and play some of their game. You can ignore facebook all you like but others don't and you can't make them, because of the that facebook has you and I over a barrel.

  • He says people like him, and Mark Zuckerberg knew the potential consequences, but they did what they did anyway.

    I'm going to go out on a limb and say I don't totally believe that. At least, not insofar as it implies a deep understanding of the true impact.

    I think what they knew was that if people really liked the product, then they could get lots of people to engage with it and that they'd make lots of money. That's true of pretty much any product, and it's why we have marketing and the like. It's what every inventor and app-maker and whatnot wants, and it's not a bad thing to want to provide something so useful t

    • I consider myself more of a realist, and whilst I agree they didn't know the full impact before hand, I have no doubt that they would have carried on regardless had they known. They weren't playing for stakes, they were playing for the world championship and to win they had to dominate. If all they cared about was gifting social media to the world and making a lifetime's worth of cash on the side then they would have created something much more open - perhaps even a protocol and a reference platform.

      The fol

      • by BronsCon ( 927697 ) <social@bronstrup.com> on Thursday November 09, 2017 @01:03PM (#55520203) Journal
        Pretty much spot on. I mean, seriously, Zuckerberg literally called all of his users "dumb fucks" early on in Facebook's life. You think that's the kind of person who would have hit the brakes if he realized what he was doing was manipulative and damaging? I certainly don't and I'm fairly certain he knew it was manipulative and damaging, even if he didn't know the extent of it.

        Zuck: Yeah so if you ever need info about anyone at Harvard

        Zuck: Just ask.

        Zuck: I have over 4,000 emails, pictures, addresses, SNS

        [Redacted Friend's Name]: What? How'd you manage that one?

        Zuck: People just submitted it.

        Zuck: I don't know why.

        Zuck: They "trust me"

        Zuck: Dumb fucks

  • by cellocgw ( 617879 ) <cellocgw@@@gmail...com> on Thursday November 09, 2017 @11:54AM (#55519713) Journal

    So it (maybe) changes children's brains. So does everything. So did letting them learn to read, or to use a telephone. Just because social dynamics are changing again, just as they did when cities were invented, and then suburbs were invented, and then TV was invented, doesn't mean this (Facebook / social media) is suddenly the Work Of The Devil.
    Heck, we may be moving towards a society where interaction is primarily online rather than meatspace. So what? Who are we hurting?

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      Yeah, sure, let's totally hamstring the social development of an entire generation, so they're so afraid of interacting with real, live people in real world situations, that'll just be so wonderful for our civilization.
      • It's OK. Someone had to do it. Now that we know what it does to us we can slowly get off of it, like we did with smoking/transfat etc.

        That said, occasionally I find some facebook posts from a very small number of people in my feed *very* useful. I've actually unfollowed everyone in my friends list (350+) except for that small group of about 10. As much as I loathe facebook, I would actually prefer the setup I have now over no facebook at all.

    • You just listed three things that progressively robbed people of their soul.

  • by Khyber ( 864651 ) <techkitsune@gmail.com> on Thursday November 09, 2017 @11:56AM (#55519727) Homepage Journal

    ...should pay the social and monetary costs for the damage he's done to society. He knew the consequences, and took the action any goddamned way. Full responsibility lies on him and Mark and they should pay dearly. Slam them straight back to middle class.

  • by schweini ( 607711 ) on Thursday November 09, 2017 @11:58AM (#55519739)
    This is a huge problem - advertising, marketing and shadier news outlets are systematically exploiting the innate cognitive biases we all have.

    They have always done this, but instead of an artform, this has become scientific. And it seems to work quite well (for them)

    It's similar to Casinos, which also exploit well-known human mental defects - which is why casinos are usually heavily regulated. But you obviously can't do the same for communication.
    The only kind-of protection against these assaults on our mental defects is education, and a change in the mind-set. But noone really has a short-term incentive to change either of those.
    • But noone really has a short-term incentive to change either of those.

      More importantly, they have a major incentive to continue to exploit it. For instance, the top 10% of drinkers drink more than 10 drinks per day (over 70 drinks a week). Most people will admit that these people have a problem. The problem is that this group of problem drinkers buy over 50% of the alcohol. Think about that, if Budweiser cut them off, they would lose over 50% of their sales. If instead of cutting them off, they limited them to only 5 drinks per day (35 drinks a week), they would still lo

  • He says people like him, and Mark Zuckerberg knew the potential consequences, but they did what they did anyway.

    They might not have realized the full implications. And they might not even agree on the full implications even now. So it is not correct to claim they knew it would be this bad and still did it.

    Secondly, even if they agree on the full implications, they might argue, "if I don't do it the other guy will do it. So why not me?". When the financial crisis was brewing and when the bubble was about to burst, so many people knew what was going on. 1 to 30 leverage on questionable securities? To shoot for an add

  • by Dan East ( 318230 ) on Thursday November 09, 2017 @12:01PM (#55519765) Journal

    I think they are giving themselves too much credit. Let's strip away the advertising machine that is FB and distill it down to the most basic fundamental. A person can post information, and others who are connected to that person can see that information and react to it. That's it in a nutshell. The fact that people get a "little dopamine hit" when someone they are connected to reacts to something they did is not something Facebook engineered. It is human nature. It is why we like to sit around talking to one another, or why we like to see a person smile when we do something. This is nothing FB engineered or calculated or anything like that. For any virtual social network to be compatible with human nature and be accepted it must provide a way for people to provide feedback with one another. Calling it a "like" or letting someone comment on it is not exactly the height of software or social engineering.

    Methinks he is giving Facebook way too much credit to stoke his ego that he had a hand in reshaping people's "relationship with society". Facebook was inevitable, and in fact had existed in many, many different forms in the past (Usenet, America Online dialup, MySpace, Slashdot commenting system, ad infinitum). Facebook was nothing more than a simplification of existing social networks to the point that anyone could use it. It hit a critical mass, like MS Windows, the iPod, etc, where it had to resources to outgrow the competitors.

  • Cow Clicker! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by s_p_oneil ( 795792 ) on Thursday November 09, 2017 @12:04PM (#55519787) Homepage

    Cow Clicker! IMO this was a much better commentary: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]

    Seriously though, what about WoW? What about EverCrack (as its own players referred to it half-jokingly)? What about the new e-Sports games like LoL, Dota2, or any multiplayer game that does its best to avoid falling into obscurity? What about TV shows that do their best to try to keep viewers hooked? What about Hollywood trying to keep people coming back in to see movies?

    What company goes out of their way to make a product that no one likes very much (and that will fail as a result of it)? He'd be better off blaming people for being sheep than for blaming a company trying to provide the best possible service/product. It's what companies do. No one is forcing them to sign up, to spend all their time on it, to get hooked on "likes" (or people clicking their cows).

    • NPR did a fantastic interview with Cow Clicker's creator, Ian Bogost, back in 2011.
      Cow Clicker Founder: If You Can't Ruin It, Destroy It [npr.org]

      > Seriously though, what about ...other addictive games ...

      The difference is that other addictive games aren't data-mining the shit out of you compared to FecesBook because they don't have access to your contacts.

      But your point is that other addictive games are bad definitely should be noted. They certainly don't get a "free pass" just because "See, we aren't as bad as

  • Well, it's here to stay. I don't use it, but if I want to discuss things going forward that doesn't matter, the fact is millions do, many to very engrossed degrees, and the inertia alone is cement for the scenario.

    In a dream scenario, this would be fine, good even. We have the masses, especially the type who are easily influenced, all nice and corralled. In the hands of more competent and benevolent minds, this is great. It's sort of like how we'd want to heap lavish taxes on an ideal government, who would

  • 2 billion Facebook accounts do not equate 2 billion people obsessed with checking out what is going on in their network. Most of the people I know with Facebook accounts use them the same way as I do - to log in effortlessly into sites where you have a passing interest, can't be bothered to supply a username and a password, and couldn't care less what garbage that will generate into your Facebook account. I do not know what is in my Facebook account, which I never visit, and I do not give a damn. As an all
  • 'How do we consume as much of your time and conscious attention as possible?'
  • FB users, I mean. Well, at least according to Mark Zuckerberg.
  • ...while I appreciate his candor, let's be blunt: we're PEOPLE, not rats in a Skinner box.

    We have brains, and it's up to us if we choose to engage them or not. Whether we chase that dopamine hit of 'ooh, someone liked my post' and sit on Facebook for another 5 mins, or if we say 'you know, I should probably play with my kids'.

    While certainly FB and other entities take advantage of mammalian psychology as much as they can, we are ultimately responsible for OUR OWN CHOICES. For good or ill.

  • Create a solution that combines people's voyeurism and narcissism together and you can make profit. With the added bonus of dopamine fueling the action.
  • by cloud.pt ( 3412475 ) on Thursday November 09, 2017 @12:45PM (#55520059)

    New technology always starts out with a basic idea: What do people need? That's the embryo stage of unicorn tech companies - they go for popularity, growth, adoption, novelty.

    Not long after, either the people in charge, or those that want to be in charge such as investors, start thinking about exit: what do I need people to need/want? How do I make them do it to such an extent it starts providing something I can monetize? ...and this second step is where things really start getting out of hand. Thats problem no.1 of capitalist society - as it doesn't regulate until a fault is so big it has an effect, you can't really make perfect symbiosis with the user base. It's something we were expected to cope with, as the rational beings we consider ourselves, as a mild trade-off for innovation and economic growth. But in the age of information overload, we don't adapt fast enough and consequences might not be offset by the benefits.

    The problem with innovation these days is that it has no sense of direction. I'll make this very, VERY basic analogy with the youtuber modus operandi: they find a weak interest group like gamers, children, compulsive consumers, extreme-left/right minds, religious types, nerds types... or a combination of the above, and then proceed to broadcast low or questonnable, definitely biased (read: sponsored) comment on whatever topic. You get low quality data on weak, influenciable people and you get a lot a disinformed community.

    Fake news or trivial shares are not the problem - the problem arises when opinion is so influenced by trend that it becomes determination. Just look at the Catalunia issue: they really had no bad quality of life, nor that big a sense of identity to really make a fuss about separating from Spain (I am close, and unbiased to the issue as a Portuguese national), yet the simple fact some parties insisted on pushing the buttons over and over again, for very personal interest to acquire power for themselves, and you get populism, which is "old" english for trend.

    I have seen the Facebook trend evolve - some years ago, Facebook was being used by everyone I thought was of reasonable character and technologically OK (let's put an age/social status label on that and say high-level educated millenials such as me and most of us here). facebook was getting trendy but it still managed to have actually relevant, valid information. Then it became meta-mainstream with the explosion of Android and the consequent WWW ubiquity, reaching the "septemberists" that had no idea on how to interact in an evolved community (both uneducated oldies as much as infant new generations). What do humans do when in a harsh environment? They attempt to thrive, Dunning–Kruger style: pack, gang up, and hoard the place with unfounded comment they believe as fact with the slightest argument. And this is not Facebook, this is the entire social web, today. And people, this september will last forever unless someone has a bright idea to stop it.

    How you might ask? Well, I surely don't know but for starters, surely something better than FB/Twitter/Reddit must come forth and replace current use-patterns - and by better I mean it gets people to move there. With a bit of luck, whoever invents that acosystem also manages to place some core rules that prevent an idiocracy state all over again. But it might take some iterations, yet some systems such as Wikipedia made it on the first try (despite some nay-sayers, Wikipedia is still asserted by most as a decent platform, perceptibly preventing abuse by about 99% of relevant issues, and arguably with a lot more good than bad).

  • And it's bothering me...

    'We'll get you eventually. I don't know if I really understood the consequences of what I was saying, because [of] the unintended consequences of a network when it grows to a billion or 2 billion...

    It just goes on into forever...

    Also - does the term "social media" make anybody else cringe like nails on a chalkboard? The term sounds so fucking stupid.

  • If they had said "I value my privacy", they'd be pretty much immune to the addiction.

  • ... I never use it.

    It's so fucking boring.

    I'm 71 years old and it's the same goddam electricity, day in and day out.

    Sure, billions of people use it NOW, but just wait until the next technology comes along and replaces it.

    Water ... ... I never use it.

    It's so fucking boring.

    I'm 71 years old and it's the same goddam water, day in and day out.

    Sure, billions of people use it NOW, but just wait until a replacement comes along.

    Air ...

  • This is nothing if not another ad for Facebook. Anything inducing stress forces an addict to crave the next dopamine hit. And any reminder of the opportunity cost associated with addiction is stress-inducing. So this "soul searching" is designed to get people who haven't been on Facebook in a while to get back on. Well, at least assuming that they stopped checking in because they viewed it as an addiction.
  • Fear Of Missing Out.

    I see this all the time with high school students today. The reason they're checking their phones (instagram/FB/snap etc) is that they always want to be up to date on whatever is happening in their lives (circles of friends etc).

    This and the need to always be connected to their circle of friends or influencers. Always on internet with social media is creating a generation of kids that don't know what to do when they aren't connected to them (being bored or disconnected isn't a bad thin

  • I'm not on Facebook, so that kind of shit will never happen to me.

    P.S.: please mod me up, I beg of you! I need to feel good and validated about my point of view!

Pound for pound, the amoeba is the most vicious animal on earth.

Working...