Three Out of Four Adults Think Facebook Is Making Society Worse, Poll Finds (cnn.com) 159
An anonymous reader shares the results of a new poll (PDF) from CNN, adding: "Facebook should be treated like cigarettes." From the report: Roughly three-quarters of adults believe Facebook is making American society worse, a new CNN poll (PDF) conducted by SSRS finds [...]. Americans say, 76% to 11%, that Facebook makes society worse, not better, according to the survey. Another 13% say it has no effect either way. That broadly negative appraisal holds across gender, age and racial lines. Even frequent Facebook users -- those who report using the site at least several times a week -- say 70% to 14% that the social network harms, rather than helps, US society. Although majorities across parties say Facebook is doing more harm than good, that feeling spikes among Republicans (82%).
Among the majority overall who think Facebook is worsening society, however, there's less of an overwhelming consensus on whether or not the platform itself is primarily to blame: 55% say that the way some people use Facebook is more at fault, with 45% saying it's more due to the way Facebook itself is run. Overall, about one-third of the public -- including 44% of Republicans and 27% of Democrats -- say both that Facebook is making American society worse and that Facebook itself is more at fault than its users.
Among the majority overall who think Facebook is worsening society, however, there's less of an overwhelming consensus on whether or not the platform itself is primarily to blame: 55% say that the way some people use Facebook is more at fault, with 45% saying it's more due to the way Facebook itself is run. Overall, about one-third of the public -- including 44% of Republicans and 27% of Democrats -- say both that Facebook is making American society worse and that Facebook itself is more at fault than its users.
This is what happens (Score:5, Insightful)
If you let corporate America run things. They will do anything to make a dollar, even if it means throwing their users, and themselves (in the long run) under a bus.
Zuckerburg needs a wakeup call, and someone needs to reign him in, because he thinks he isn't doing anything wrong (even after everything) and facebooks users, the government and all of America thinks he his doing wrong.
Re:This is what happens (Score:4, Interesting)
Nah. This has nothing to do with corporate America. This has everything to do with shitty people. You could put a non-profit in charge of Facebook and if the goal is to allow like-minded people get together and talk about their things in common, you'll get the same result: some useful groups, some innocuous groups, and some toxic groups.
Profits didn't make Facebook bad, it being easily accessible to really stupid people has.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The problem with Facebook extends beyond just giving people access to like-minded people. They aren't just passive transmitters of whatever people choose to post. Instead, they curate the content, choosing to give prominence to some material and hide others. This is not done neutrally. Facebook desperately wants people to spend more time there, so they push material that makes people more engaged. Unfortunately, they've decided that making people angry is the best way of keeping them engaged, so they d
Re:This is what happens (Score:5, Interesting)
Facebook actively tries to discourage (real) social interaction.
5-10 years ago? Facebook was a way I caught up with friends. I got a mostly current timeline of people. If someone posted "hey who wants to go to (insert event/bar/movie/musical show/whatever)" for tonight, tomorrow, etc... I saw it in time to respond. Coordinate. Head out and be social.
Today? If I see one of those posts, it's from three fucking days ago. Event already happened.
Local performers I know are sick of it. They either pay Ratface Zuck's Highway Fucking Robbery to "promote" their posts or it gets fucking lost. And heaven forbid you try to organize a birthday party for someone.
Zuckerberg's a ratfucking bastard and the rest of his company are just as bad.
Re: (Score:2)
Today? If I see one of those posts, it's from three fucking days ago. Event already happened.
A friend of mine living in Switzerland was giving a concert in my town - in Germany.
He only used FB to catch the audience.
It was on my "news feed" 3 days later.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
FB like a pen (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
A pen is neutral until used.
Depends on the pen. Facebook is like a pen smeared in excrement. If it's even vaguely near you you it can spread disease.
Re:This is what happens (Score:4, Interesting)
That people have opinions? I doubt that corporate America is responsible for that, they may be responsible for what kind of opinions people hold though.
In any case, opinions are like assholes, everyone has one and what they contain seldom looks like what was originally consumed, ie an opinions reflection of factual reality is mostly shit.
Re: (Score:2)
No, that facebook actively tries to connect and promote people that have bad hateful opinions. We shouldn't be helping these people, Facebook actively does this because user engagement = ad revenue = money. There are other sites that have moderation that demotes bad content.
Re: (Score:2)
Zuckerburg needs a wakeup call, and someone needs to reign him in...
Reign him in? You've seemingly lauded royal ambitions on a misfit clown, and the realization that he's not aware of his transgressions is evidence of your misunderstanding of a billionaire surrounded by yes persons... the belief set of Facebook users and the gov't of all America aside.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, the process is being talked about.
Governmental regulations... and splitting up the facebook(meta) conglomerate.
But what is more likely to happen is them to lose most of their userbase
Re:This is what happens (Score:5, Interesting)
This isn't specific to corporate America in general (though it has its share of issues), but with the fact that Facebook is as large as the government, and wields a disproportionate amount of power for what is in fact an advertising agency. Because of its size and its near-monopoly position, it is capable of making discrimination much more invidious than an individual, or even a smaller corporation would be capable of. With great power comes great responsibility, and Facebook has not handled its responsibility well.
If I speak in a reasonable volume, I'm merely exercising my right to free speech. However, if I shout so loud no other voices can be heard, I am denying others their right to free speech. If I use my property to do business, I am merely exercising my property rights. However, if my business is the sole source of a necessary good or service, and I discriminate against others, I'm no longer exercising my property rights, but oppressing others.
If Facebook was merely one of dozens of similarly sized social networks, its censorship policies would not be nearly as oppressive. If Facebook was an open platform which allowed interoperability with other networks, again, it would not pose such a problem. But because Facebook is larger than quite a few governments, and exercises considerably more power, whatever censorship it does perform represents an existential threat to the free exchange of ideas which make democracies tenable. It is not merely a threat to individuals, but can shape societies in ways which undermine the rights of others. It is the proverbial East India Company of the 21st century, a neo-colonialist organization which exercises "soft power" by denying political power through the prevention of any consensus contrary to its interests.
The spirit of democracy is one of vesting power in individuals, rather than governments, or large organizations, and Facebook certainly violates the spirit of democracy, even if it remains in full compliance with the law. The problem isn't that a company has a right to run their business as they see fit, but rather that a business as large as Facebook commits moral wrongs in their exercise of such rights. Whether it is legal or not is a question of power, not of morality, nor justice.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I think the first solution would be to break up the Facebook conglomerate so that there's actually competition. I don't even know why they approved the mergers in the first place with WhatsApp and Instagram, Facebook has too much power, and not enough competition.
Re: (Score:2)
Welcome! (Score:2)
If you let corporate America run things. They will do anything to make a dollar, even if it means throwing their users, and themselves (in the long run) under a bus.
Hi! Welcome to Capitalism+Democracy(tm)!!
Sounds like you are new here, so if you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, I have a question, why did we let facebook buy whatsapp and instagram?
Re: (Score:3)
I'm also interested that this focus is all on FaceBook--which the government wants more control over--and not Twitter, which is at least as harmful as FaceBook, if not more.
Re: (Score:3)
I'm also interested that this focus is all on FaceBook ... and not Twitter
Don't worry. Once the truth panels are established, they will soon have their authority expanded.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Twitter, like Facebook, has deliberately not just turned a blind eye but actively promoted white supremacists [colorofchange.org] repeatedly on its platform. They admitted they were refusing to actually ban nazis [forward.com] because too many conservative politicians are indistinguishable from them. [businessinsider.com]
The two platforms are different in form but not in problem.
Re:This is what happens (Score:5, Informative)
Fun fact: Neither Facebook nor Twitter are operated by the government. They can ban any speech they want on their respective platforms and it doesn't violate anyone's rights under the first amendment.
Re: (Score:2)
Fun fact: Neither Facebook nor Twitter are operated by the government.
Try scrolling up to the beginning of this thread. We are having a discussion about government bans.
They can ban any speech they want on their respective platforms and it doesn't violate anyone's rights under the first amendment.
Of course, they can and should be able to do that. Except there are people who want that to change. They want government regulation of social media. It appears that you and I agree that is a really bad idea.
Re:This is what happens (Score:4, Interesting)
We are having a discussion about government bans.
In context, you were replying to the claim that Twitter refused to ban white supremacists with the assertion that "there should be no bans on legal speech." Logically, governments can't ban legal speech without making it illegal. Only private companies can do that. Looking up thread, it looks like a discussion about the moderation policies of Facebook and Twitter. You're the only one who mentioned the government at all, and only once along side users and advertisers as groups that could potentially "reign in" Zuckerburg. I think my interpretation of your post was perfectly reasonable.
It appears that you and I agree that is a really bad idea.
That's hard to say. I generally want regulations that keep the public safe. I want my food inspected, my drugs tested, and my advertisements honest. I just don't know how that would work with social media, but it's clear that something needs to be done.
The situation with FaceBook reminds me a lot of tobacco companies. They knew their product was addictive and dangerous and did what they could to keep that quiet. FaceBook knew their product was addictive and dangerous and did everything in their power to make it more addictive. That's clearly unethical and exactly the kind of thing that shouldn't be allowed to happen.
On free speech generally, I think it's important to remember that most people agree that not all speech should be allowed. Even in the US we have never had total freedom of speech. One of the first things we did was ban speech against the government for goodness sake! We have libel laws, laws against making certain kinds of threats, and laws that ban certain kinds of advertising. These are all limitations on our freedom of speech that we find acceptable.
Now, we need to be extremely careful when governments place limits on speech and we should be immediately suspicious anytime someone suggests it, but it's just as dangerous to dismiss the need out-of-hand.
Re: (Score:2)
The issue is not just about individual posts and individual phrases that might be illegal, e.g. true threats. It's about the effect of the platform as a whole and about many individual posts taken together to add up to more than the sum of their parts.
Take the Christchurch terrorist as an example. His manifesto cited a video by Lauren Southern about the Great Replacement, a discredited white supremacist theory that by itself is unlikely to violate any laws and would be difficult to ban on any grounds that w
Re: (Score:2)
No they don't: private property is a tool of the radical woke left. I have a first amendment right to be heard!
Re: (Score:3)
There should be no bans on legal speech.
This doesn't say anything though. If you ban something, it ceases to become legal.
Once you start banning legal speech, where do you stop?
Some speech is banned, even in the US with its first amendment, including advocacy of the use of force. Ultimately the supreme court decides where you stop based on its interpretation of the constitution. If you argue for absolutely no limits on free speech then you're arguing to allow people to yell "fire" in a crowded room, to use the traditional example, or to publish child pornography.
Re: This is what happens (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The problem isn't that the younger generations have a lack of tolerance for speech that they don't like. It's the fact that being called out on what they just said is hurting the feelings of the people who don't want their beliefs challenged and they don't like it.
Re: This is what happens (Score:5, Informative)
Weird claim. The research has shown that all of the platforms seem to preferentially amplify right wing content.
https://static1.squarespace.co... [squarespace.com]
https://www.washingtonpost.com... [washingtonpost.com]
https://www.technologyreview.c... [technologyreview.com]
But why let facts get in the way of a 2 minute hate?
Re: (Score:2)
ShanghaiBill and rsilverguns are just here to spread their bozo octogenarian rightwing conspiracies, it's not even hate at this point.
Re: This is what happens (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If you've spent any time at all in a FB political discussion, you're likely to know people who've been put in "FB jail" temporarily. I've personally received FB warnings on more than one occasion (and I rarely ever participate in those discussions anymore) for providing links to such things as CDC pages. Your "research" proves nothing.
Re: (Score:2)
I never got a warning.
I always got just banned. When I complained I got an auto answer.
I once got banned by hitting return, when I wanted to continue to edit the post: banned.
Now I'm banned for being a terrorist, for a month. They claim I spread terrorist propaganda.
Actually I consider to start a "go fund me" to take that to a court of law. Their claims are basically defamation, libel and slander.
Background:
I'm in a few martial arts groups, mostly about various Karate and Jujutsu styles.
There is an ex milit
Re: (Score:2)
I've seen similar instances occur numerous times to people I personally know that wouldn't hurt a fly. It's a stupid system. But then, shockingly, it puts us in agreement for once.
Re: (Score:2)
No worries. :P
I do not argue against YOU - only against your arguments. Sometimes.
If we go out and have a beer, we could be best friends. But would not stop me again: to argue against your arguments
Re: (Score:2)
As it should be!
Re: This is what happens (Score:5, Insightful)
Conservatives are in a strange place at the moment.
On the one hand conservative ideas are clearly very popular. Fox News is the biggest news channel, right wind media tends to dominate in most markets.
Yet on the other hand conservatives are still wedded to the victim narrative, constantly complaining about being cancelled or censored. Ironically much of this complaining is on their market leading platforms.
Re:This is what happens (Score:4, Funny)
> Who is the "someone"?
All of us. We can form a good natured protest to let everyone know there is a large group of us that disagree with what is happening.
1. We can create a good natured protest and have everyone stand outside the Facebook offices.
2. Then 10% of the people will breach the Facebook property after guards open the gates and provocateurs egg them on
3. Then 0.1% can bash the windows and sit in the executives desks.
4. Then 1 guy can walk around with a Viking helmut letting MSM take iconic pictures of him even though he really doesn't represent the movement.
5. The Facebook executives can evacuate and claim they feared for their lives and condemn all 100% of the people.
On second thought, I guess we should do nothing.
Re: (Score:2)
Then 1 guy can walk around with a Viking helmut letting MSM take iconic pictures of him even though he really doesn't represent the movement.
So what you're saying is that Jan 6 was, in fact, an organized movement.
Re: This is what happens (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I mean cars let kids go out have sex with a different partner every afternoon after school, and destroyed the moral backbone of America.
I’ve finally found a car analogy on slashdot that readers won’t get.
Re:This is what happens (Score:4, Interesting)
Except that virtually the same proportion of *frequently users* agree with the idea that Facebook isn't such a good thing for society as a whole. That's kind of remarkable.
What's not remarkable is a lack of agreement on *why*. Unless people study a problem their opinion on why is pretty much guesswork.
Re: (Score:2)
But it is good for the car industry!
Re: (Score:2)
That is true, but Facebook also wants no moderation and they want to incite these people because it makes facebook money because they get to serve more ads up to all those angry people on their platform. We should probably look at regulating that or breaking up facebook.
This is terrible news for Facebook (Score:5, Funny)
That depends... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Perhaps the remaining 25% thought Meta was the problem?
No, that 25% think the other 75% are the problem.
Re: (Score:2)
Okay, but considering the numbers there is still some large number of people using Facebook even though they agree that Facebook is making society worse. Something is rotten in America (and it's affecting the rest of the world, too).
Re: (Score:2)
The good news is that there's still room for 25% market growth in the US though?
You first need to make internet available to those 25% though...
Re: (Score:2)
Honest question; Does Facebook even work on dial-up?
I have a G4 Mac with a built-in modem, but the landline went away long ago. Frontier couldn't be bothered to fix it.
If I did have a landline, could Ten-four Fox get Facebook to work?
As they say, nothing of value was lost.
Re: (Score:2)
Simple answer: yes. For about 3 or 5 minutes.
The problem is not really the dial up (it is actually, but - well, it is only slow), but the brain dead idea that a "web page" is an endless stream of scrolling down down down ...
Sooner or later your browser, or at least that particular process, is out of memory. Because, for some reason, they do not free the memory of the stuff above.
The best thing is: Facebook now has a dark mode (since a while).
Why? Because neither the browser's dark mode nor the OS's dark mod
What's wrong with that fourth person? (Score:5, Funny)
Is this like that last asshole dentist that can't get on board with Trident? Or the East German judge that gives someone a 2 when every other judge is handing out a 6?
Well that has a lot to do with media (Score:2, Insightful)
Although I don't like Facebook, I have no way of scientifically knowing that, and I assume never do the vast majority of adults. Just another junk statistic that is sensational, but no real information. I think that is making society worse 8-).
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah. The result of several years of stories about how bad Facebook is.
Re: (Score:2)
Or alternatively, they've used Metafacer and have seen firsthand how people treat strangers there.
Majority ownership = All Zuckâ(TM)s fault (Score:2)
Since Zuck insists on having majority control of Facebook, ultimately that means heâ(TM)s responsible for all the decisions and consequences, which means itâ(TM)s ALL. ZUCKâ(TM)S. FAULT.
Slashdot: you stink! (Score:2)
...All Zuckâ(TM)s fault...
...that means heâ(TM)s responsible...
...means itâ(TM)s ALL. ZUCKâ(TM)S. FAULT...
First you insist on redirecting me to your crummy "mobile" version of the site, even though I specifically asked for the desktop version, and then your mobile version's comment box fucks up apostrophes to such a level that text is barely readable.
Well done, Slashdot. Well done. /s
Re: (Score:2)
The desktop site doesn't handle ’ either. Unless you use HTML entities like ’, maybe.... I don't know where you've been the past 10 years, but every iPhone user does the same thing.
Re: (Score:2)
I almost exclusively use my desktop, or force my device into desktop version - this time I couldn't (stupid server kept redirecting to the mobile version now - seems like something new), so I never encountered this before.
I always thought people's screwed up comments were from pasting something that had unicode, and not from actually typing a simple apostrophe or similar.
Re: (Score:2)
I take it your desktop is not a Mac, then. Because I think it does proper typographic quotes everywhere just like iOS.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No, it does not. Only in "RTF" or similar windows. Ordinary text windows/text fields are ordinary text: just like everyone would expect it.
Otherwise every programmer would run mad. OTOH: obviously I have that disabled anyway in my keyboard settings. I basically have everything disabled.
Re: (Score:2)
It is half iOs and half /.
You should simply go into the settings and disable "smart quotes" - no idea how it is actually called.
Smart quotes means the silly programmers of iOS think that an apostrophe is not good enough bout needs to be introducing slanted tick and an exiting slanted tick: and those are unicode which /. can not handle.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh!
And I thought that was your FB post you copy/pasted!
Then 75% of people should stop using it (Score:5, Insightful)
Or everyone should look at it only a quarter of the time. Take a month off and then after that the rest is easy.
Re: (Score:3)
There's nothing wrong with the things most people use Facebook for. The problems are with the things Facebook uses people for.
Re: (Score:2)
Having "deleted" my own account ~8+ years ago, I have no idea what you're talking about. When I left, it was basically full of pet and todays-lunch/dinner photos, quasi-friends and random "influencers" appearing to have more fun than they actually are, and reminders about how much I dislike my ex-significant-other(s). I'm very much happy to be completely rid of all of that. The people that I actually care to keep in contact with, I now converse with directly by texts/phone-calls/Slack/Discord, via personal
Re: (Score:3)
This is what I’m hearing from your post:
3/4 of adults: I’m concerned bystanders may be killed by autonomous cars.
You: Then don’t get in an autonomous car.
While yours may be good general advice, you’re missing the point if you think it in any way addresses the concerns people have about how Facebook is adversely affecting society as a whole. How many stories have we heard about well-loved relatives becoming hateful and vitriolic after getting snookered by crackpot conspiracies? How many times does the Internet lynch mob need to get the facts wrong and ruin an innocent person’s life? How much more resea
Re: (Score:2)
OK, this being /. I would like to nit-pick your argument. Thank you in advance.
The tldr; version of your argument breaks down to "I don't like Facebook so I conclude it is adversely affecting society as a whole."
Claiming that one "only needs a cursory glance" at the evidence in order to agree with you has the opposite rhetorical effect of what you probably intended. Very, very few things in life are manifestly true or untrue. Certainly no mere opinion is. We reserve this level of supporting evidence for thi
Re: (Score:2)
OK, this being /. I would like to nit-pick your argument. Thank you in advance.
This being /., nitpicks are always welcome!
Very, very few things in life are manifestly true or untrue. Certainly no mere opinion is. We reserve this level of supporting evidence for things so commonly understood and experienced that we accept them as principles, such as the Law of Gravity.
Clearly I’m speaking in a manner that lacks scientific rigor here, but I would argue that by the point 75% of the adult population is in agreement about any opinion—especially with regards to something that is new enough that it would have required formulating that opinion recently, and even more so when there’s a trend line suggesting belief in that opinion is rapidly gaining traction—it’s highly likely that evidence for that opinion
Social media is the problem (Score:2)
It's a national sport to poke fun at Zuck, but (Score:2)
IMO, Facebook really does as much "good" as "harm", all in all. The "marketplace" is really the only effective place to buy, sell or trade things people can use without paying listing or "final sale" fees, other than Craigslist. (And Craigslist really only gives you local reach within your chosen city.)
For those trying to use online dating platforms, Facebook Dating isn't terrible either, for a free service. (It has some downsides, such as not even functioning on a computer browser at all... only works on
Re: (Score:2)
The thing with Craigslist, it just works. If I try to go to Facebook marketplace, all I see are login prompts and why would I want to create an account with someone who thinks people who create an account there are idiots.
People are pieces of shit (Score:2)
70% of Americans use FB. So, at least 45% of Americans are pieces of shit who think FB is making society worse, but they still use it.
Just break it off and return users data/metadata (Score:2)
We need to break it up into parts, return any data and metadata to the users, delete it off the datasets of the FB clients that stole it, and let the chips fall where they may.
And yet (Score:2)
How many of these same adults are or are willing to give up Facebook and its toxicity?
. . .
Exactly.
Then stop using it (Score:2)
Facebook said in the third quarter it had 3.58 billion monthly users across its family of apps, up from 3.51 billion in the second quarter. This metric is used to measure Facebook’s total user base across its main app, Instagram, Messenger and WhatsApp.
Antivaxxers love FB (Score:2)
3/4 Americans think FB is shite. Then other 1/4 are antivax morons who love spreading lies.
Facebook is a mirror (Score:3)
And what it has shown is that the world is bigger and more complex than many people are able to deal with.
It has revealed that we are no longer a United States, and that we may never actually have been.
It has amplified voices that otherwise would have been largely ignored and dismissed as either "crackpot" or "not in line with the 'Powers That Be'".
Would we have arrived here if Facebook didn't exist? I think we would have.
I think the divisions have been brewing for decades, and today's social media platforms have only sped up the process of social decay.
If Facebook didn't exist, another platform would have been created and we would be here anyway.
Re: (Score:2)
I regularly decline their employment offers (Score:2)
I don't know about you, but those fuckers have sent me a recruitment email nearly every month for the last two years. Every time, I've told them to go pound sand, and to kindly take me off their recruitment list and never ask me again. Many quality engineers I know are in the same boat. Sorry their company sucks and is spun way out of control, but that is their own fault, and neither I nor anyone I know feels obligated to go unfuck it for them - we'd rather just let it die on its own accord and leave our re
so they're going to stop loading it? (Score:3)
Three men make a tiger (Score:3)
An old Chinese proverb that comes from a story of the Warring States period. An official asked the King if he would believe a report that there was a tiger roaming around in the market. The King replied, of course not, that's ridiculous. The official asked if he would believe it if there were two reports, and the King said he'd be suspicious. The official asked if he would believe it if there were three reports, and the King replied that he would definitely believe it.
The fact that there are so many people reporting the same thing means that other people will continue to believe it whether it's true or not. Three men make a tiger.
It's entirely possible that Facebook doesn't actually make society any worse than it would have gotten in the absence of social media. As time goes on, our society pushes more progressive values, and those conflict increasingly with conservative values. It happened with slavery, women's rights, and gay rights, before the Internet was invented. Now that we have social media, we're blaming social media for the increasing conflict in society, when there has been slowly increasing conflict in society for the past 100+ years.
It could be that Facebook is speeding up the conflict, making us get over it quicker, which would help society quicker. But since three out of four men think there's a tiger in the market, it must be true.
Re: (Score:3)
True, but quite unlikely, for a simple reason - whenever an effective tools is released with almost no barrier to entry regarding its use, that tool will almost always be used more by non-altruistic people with nothing to lose. Witness how nearly every comment on popular YouTube videos is now authored by bots who exclusively have profile photos of nearly-naked women with pro
Re: (Score:2)
Mod parent up. I love it when people bring some historical context into a discussion. Smart and interesting.
BTW, the "three tigers" story is paralleled in Biblical texts as well. In the OT, a single witness was not allowed to bring a charge against anyone, that required two witnesses generally and three for a capital crime. In the NT, the same thing: two or three witnesses are required to bring a charge.
Re: (Score:2)
Too bad this comment is Anonymous, I'd say mod it up otherwise because it's pretty thoughtful and interesting. However, if a person is unwilling to put their name to their comment, it puts an automatic asterisk on what they're saying.
And in other news... (Score:2)
Three out of four people aren't complete idiots.
just not enough data to know... (Score:4, Interesting)
Lies, damn lies, and statistics (Score:3)
[OP]> "Even frequent Facebook users -- those who report using the site at least several times a week -- say 70% to 14% that the social network harms, rather than helps, US society."
Well, either those 70% of people are out to harm US society by using it, or (my theory) they are simply saying they feel FB is hurting the US society by helping the opposite extreme of the political spectrum. Think of FB as an arms dealer selling to both sides of the conflict, 70% of customers would say it hurts the world because they sell weapons to the other side, but that would not stop them from buying weapons from said dealer.
Obvious (Score:2)
In other news...
One out of four adults is in the bottom quartile.
Facebook and ... (Score:2)
Facebook and all social media are facilitating a race to the bottom.
There was a time, before eternal September when trolling was about rebuking dead beats, it was smart and witty. Now it is increasing about abuse, insults and bigotry from idiots. It lacks any kind of sophistication and has little or no consequences for them.
How Facebook really works (Score:2)
In other news... (Score:2)
25% of people are dumb, ignorant morons.
Meanwhile, Youtube Equips Civil War Types (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What? While I don't use FaceBook myself, I know that a lot of people who find a great deal of value in it. They use it to keep in touch with friends and family, to organize events, and announce important changes in their lives. Lacking an alternative, it doesn't make a lot of sense to give up that utility just because we've discovered some problems with it.
See, reasonable people know that problems can be fixed and that it's foolish to toss something out just because it isn't perfect. Part of growing up