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).
Of course... It has been taught in the most basic courses to design questionnaires since... forever... There is a whole science around that. Not only for mental health. Carefully identifying the best proxies and looking at the internal consistency of multiple answers and/or events/metrics is the intricate part of the design of the questionnaire. A simple/dumb example; you do not ask: "do you constantly read Hacker News?" but "have you heard <name some prevalent news in HN from today> of these news?"
Did you have a look at the slide deck? I don't design survey's for a living, but the questions seem carefully chosen (often included as a footnote on slides with graphs).
I just did; I was replying to your exact question in the comment. Questions like "Instagram can make me laugh when I am feeling down" do not look like the kind of questions that a good independently designed survey would do; in general, the would tend to be more of the kind that focus on a concrete event and their surroundings - it may look like they loose the perspective, you are looking at the only bad time that person had, but, done across a lot of people, it is more informative (would statistically represent the most likely state for the population, even if it is totally wrong for some individuals).
It's not showing me the 'reply' button on your comment.
That seems like fair criticism. It's not my area of expertise. I'm just here to post the source document because in light of what the study actually claims, the media reaction has been ridiculous.
Tangent: The “reply” link is hidden in some cases (fast replies) to avoid flamewars. If you insist on replying, clicking the date stamp to go the comment’s permalink will show a reply box.
You could use diagnostic tests, such as those described in the DSM. This is what psychologists and doctors do in real life to determine whether someone is depressed.
answer to your question then some editorializing on this thread:
answer: yes there are better ways to independently measure mental health than one self-report variable.
Generally in the social sciences you can measure things in a number of broad ways. Generally we refer to a 'construct' - a theoretical description of some phenomenon or set of concepts that is difficult or impossible to measure directly. Basically, it is a definition and the hard part is that you can't directly touch the thing so sometimes these 'variables' have definitions that get argued about in the margins - c.f., motivation, how do you define categorize and measure motivation?
Effectively, we are dealing with ways of evidencing things that are inferred.
There are a couple paradigms of measurement (more than the two I'll mention):
Observation - using some protocol or clear and as objective as possible tool for having a (typically) trained external individual. This can be either an overarching conclusion or observation of specific actions or symptoms:
Self report - relying on the person reporting things. This can be the constructs themselves (not great) or it can be more concrete markers of things (better but still used with caution. The issue here is sometimes lying, sometimes social norming, sometimes self-awareness - all represent sources of error.
Asking self report questions directly isn't inherently bad, but for something like mental health which is a latent construct, a single direct self report question is not going to get you accepted into any serious journal. You might ask 10 or 15 indirect, symptoms based questions, that is called a scale. For example you would ask: "how often over the last two weeks have you felt little interest or pleasure in doing things?" (from the PHQ-9, which implements the DSM-IV clinical criteria from depression).
personal opinion:
The question that the grandparent mentions is "In general, how has instagram affected the way you feel about your mental health?" Asking teenagers that is just...not great research praxis. The reason asking that is not great rather than bad is because it was part of a battery of data that they collected, all of which has to be interpreted together.
For a lot of reasons, likert scale questions like this are bad, particular bad with children (who will tell you what they think you want to here), and increasingly bad in a society where 'please rate my customer service a 10 because a 9 is failing' is the norm. In fact, most respected likert-like scales still see a bias in all answers above the norm - a distributional skew towards the 'good' option whether its agree or better or whatever the scale is. The results of this question alone are not nearly as positive as they are implied to be.
The next slides begin the absolute death for the claim about slide 24 ...
Slide 25 - explains that the positives come from memes and comedians. That drop to 'conversations you have' and 'comments you receive' absolutely wipes out the idea that instagram is a positive. The sorting of this group of categories makes me honestly just sad.
Slide 26 - "While the overall effects of instagram are positive [ed: that is not how I interpret this data], the effects are determined by the moment." I would encourage you to read the quotes.
Slide 27 - "Teens blame instagram for increase in the rates of anxiety and depression among teens" Take a look at the text of this one as well...kids aren't stupid
Slide 28 - "Teens who struggle with mental health say instagram makes it worse"
What collectively this means is - it amplifies. For developing children who already have unstable hormonal and neurological responses, that is like society giving an arsonist a lighter and me claiming its not my fault because I only gave him accelerant. The teens understand this and the data backs them up.
If your consultants bother to categorize the harm your company is doing pulling out one question and oversimplifying the results isn't an effective counter argument.
Not only is there a better way than a single self-report variable - this variable was just plucked completely out of context and a claim made about it that is unsupported.
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.
They say one thing and do the other. For example: In many feminist countries being a prostitute is legal but soliciting a prostitute isn't. Its meant to protect prostitutes which I 100% understand, but it is a double standard that stigmatizes the use of prostitution while also putting those who utilize it in real danger. I am not arguing for legalized prostitution, and I do not think anybody has the right to sex, however I think that it is wrong to shame and humiliate somebody for a lack of sexual success.
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.
I must be a different age, 39, but outside of PBS, I don’t recall too much programming that was not funded by licensed merchandising and unhealthy foods. Of course many of those unhealthy foods were licensed too.
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".
I've noticed recently that in gaming Sigma is only referred to ironically and is usually postured to poke fun at "alpha" stereotype fulfilling people and internet bullies.
>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_...
If I had kids, social media would probably be the only content I would want to block or limit. (Also ads/tracking and malware riddled sites). It is one thing to be a curious teen and seek out sensitive topics but it is completely different to be shown a stream of misrepresentations and false advertising constantly.
I am not sure how to really do this. If you tell someone in the age of 10-14 that everything on certain sites is probably fake or misleading, are they going to understand that? I thought I did at that age but that capacity may have been limited to certain topics and contexts e.g click-bate ads are a lot easier to mentally filter out than sponsored Instagram/FB posts.
Not to mention the problems you run into with banning something every peer of theirs is using. That goes a long way towards making your kid a social outcast (and why in practice would be as easy to enforce as making them wear something unfashionable). Unfortunately I think limiting time with clear boundaries is the only practical way to go, outside of collective action by all parents.
This. The best you can do is hope they get started late and keep an eye on their social media as much as possible. Just NEVER let them know you're watching or they will take that sh*t underground.
And of course try to raise them with good values and a solid emotional base to make good decisions with.
Instagram is a cesspool for more than teen girls. I'm reminded of the influencer who charged $20k to endorse a product, and $75k to trash a product.
All the top landscape photographers now have to use Instagram as their primary online marketing platform. Landscape photos look horrible at Instagram-size (even on the desktop the size and resolution is horrible) unless you boost the colors and jazz them up to a ludicrous degree.
I'm on a lot of overlander forums, in the US and international. We never once see the top #VANLIFE Instagram stars unless they're trying to promote something. I'm convinced they get the sunset shot (10x likes if the woman is wearing a thong), then go stay in a hotel with all their influencer $$.
I could go on. Basically Instagram destroys everything industry and hobby it touches. It's still fine for sharing travel pics with your friends though.
I'm being old here I know - but instagram is surely the nadir of social media.
Big brother facebook, cousin whatsapp - and even twitter, snapchat and tiktok on the other side of the tracks can actually say that they can fulfill a useful purpose.
Instagram just seems to go out of their way to ensure nothing of any importance can be transmitted on the platform. Crappy little pictures with some token text, just enough to plug the sponsor.
I think my point was I just don't see how it's healthy to anyone.
If a magic wand was waved and instragram vanished - I can't even imagine a downside.
> The advice of how to look and be your best often came dressed up in language of empowerment — and it wasn’t wrong about what it took to succeed in a sexist, appearances-driven society. If magazines left girls with the distinct impression that our bodies and faces were being constantly appraised, assessed and compared, that impression was confirmed by our experiences in the world.
This is worth noting though. In a world where top twitch streamers make millions, are young women wrong to prioritize their appearance? Is it not a major factor in socioeconomic success?
What if Facebook is a mirror that amplifies the best and worst parts of humanity, and we like attack it because it's easier than accepting that it's reflecting us.
You dont think regular seeing other people in your school is enough of a cesspool. I can't think of much we can do about it except perhaps get all teenage girls to wear Burkas.
It is paywalled, if the NYT detects from your browser cookie that you have already consumed all of your free articles for the month.
But some ad blockers, like Brave's "Shields" feature, manage to block NYT's tracking so that every article appears as if it is the first article you read this month.
Are we supposed to believe Instagram isn't a virtual sacrifice zone for people who aren't teenage girls? Social media is inherently toxic because that what happens when a bunch of undersocialized techies with no grasp of psychology turn a chunk of the internet into a never-ending high school reunion.
The next part of the paragraph you quoted is the important part, where the author identifies what they think the problem in that scenario is.
>What exactly are we talking about here? Say you’re a 13-year-old girl who is beginning to feel anxious about your appearance, who has followed some diet influencers online. 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.”
Anorexia has the highest mortality rate of any psychiatric disorder, so it's a big issue if Facebook is pushing young people interested in healthy weight loss toward "following" unhealthy body image and extreme dieting. (I don't know if you've known someone who has struggled with anorexia, but it can be really, really terrible.) Obesity being a problem doesn't negate the good that could be done by not algorithmically steering young people toward anorexia when they're looking to manage their weight in a healthy way.
I suppose it was inevitable that someone would apply "whataboutism" to teenage mental health.
It is perfectly acceptable, and rational, to have concerns about a variety of problems facing society. Deciding to say "What about obesity?" when the discussion is about some other aspect of teenage mental health demonstrates a disturbing lack of empathy.
No one disagrees that obesity is, and will be, a major cause of morbidity. It serves no purpose to express outrage if another topic of extreme concern is also brought up for discussion.
I am not going to dare to judge what issue is the greater societal ailment. I do know that anything that robs society of human potential is a crime and it is our duty to show concern and work towards solutions.
It's connected, though. The teens starve themselves and feel awful about themselves which leads to restriction which leads to messed up eating cycles and food obsession which leads to overeating and binge eating and screwed up metabolism and possibly obesity as an adult.
100 years ago: "legal alcohol is hurting our children"
70 years ago: "atheists and communists are hurting our children"
35 years ago: "drugs are hurting our children"
25 years ago: "violent video games are hurting our children"
Now: "social media is hurting our children"
All were/are probably true to some extent in some cases, but that does not mean that it necessarily made/makes sense to try to turn society against the risky or dangerous thing. Skateboarding hurts some children. Does that mean that we should ban TV shows that celebrate skateboarding? "It is for the sake of the children" is a time-tested way to get people to support authoritarian policies.
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).