Ask Lemmy

Social media takes hundreds of different forms (including e.g. Lemmy) and any study pretending that they're all the same is useless — unless you can simply replace "social media" with "Facebook", "TikTok", or whatever they're actually about.

For example the first of the studies linked above finds that using "Facebook, Snapchat, and Instagram" more than they normally would makes people depressed, and the second finds that an unspecified mix of whatever people normally do that they think of as "social media" did not. Those findings do not contradict each other and do not represent a meaningful controversy.

Politically it's a controversy, or a tangled mess of controversies. Scientifically it's just a complete mystery that will — at the speed of science — take decades to unravel. With any luck all the findings about fucking Facebook and Twitter will be obsolete much sooner than that because at some point the enshittification will finally get so bad that people come to their senses and stop using them. The free-world versions of social media, such as the fediverse, continue to get better and will win in the long run.

The problem is not the substance but the dosage.

If you don't abuse and use it responsibly you should be fine.

There is a big difference between using it for 1 hour and 12 hours continuously.

That's what I think.

I think social media probably isn't great, but the data also isn't particularly conclusive, and much of it is very broad and unhelpful. For example, in the first study you linked, it had a sample of 143 University students accross three different social media sites, measured only using app battery usage. While it isn't to be completely discounted, esspecially alongside the larger body of work, it's sample size is tiny, and the data collected isn't esspecially representitve of what is supposed to be measured, as it includes non-social-media tools like Facebook Marketplace while excluding social media accessed via the browser (among other flaws). The vast majority of studies on the topic, regardless of findings, have similar flaws.

IMO, social media as a whole is too varied to meaningfully lump together, and a lot of the impacts that are commonly attributed to social media are better attributed to deeper causes regarding lack of sociatal trust and support. Tracking the impacts of social media is hard enough, nonetheless the impacts of something like the lack of third places, and impacts of economic inequality on mental health.

Well, in general going for a walk in a park, engaging in sport, playing or listening to music, being creative, cooking and eating healthy or social interaction are good for mental health. If you are preoccupied with social media, these healthy habits suffer.

Just based on my personal vibes, I think social media is harmful if you’re doing it wrong. Most people are. If you allow Meta to manipulate your emotions with fear and hate, while developing an addiction at the same time, you’re not going to have a great time. Quitting that kind of toxic relationship will improve your life.

Mastodon was designed to be less addictive, and that’s why it’s a bit boring to most people. It takes special kind of dedication to get addicted to Mastodon, and I think the same applies to Lemmy as well.

What’s your opinion on this matter?

That the one study that you think says social media isn't bad is the one study that didn't just look at social media...

So the logical result is that social media is still bad, but that other technology can offset it. If nothing else because it's time not spent on social media.

I mean, it's all laid out in the study...

Our study also did not differentiate between various types of games or social media; this is important because certain games are more strongly associated with problematic gaming.54 Online gaming is often included within the broader definition of social media,55 and platforms like Discord or Twitch are integral to the gaming community. The lack of differentiation between these platforms may obscure important findings and could partly explain why more frequent gaming among girls predicted decreases in later social media use. In addition, there are contextual factors that likely moderate the psychological effects of video gaming—such as social context (e.g. solo vs. multiplayer), player motivation (e.g. escapism, competition), and timing of play,56 which were not captured in the current study. Similarly, different social media platforms vary in features and user engagement patterns, which may influence their impact on mental health in distinct ways. Additionally, the reliance on time-based measures for social media and gaming overlooks other important dimensions, such as the purpose of use, emotional responses, or the specific nature of interactions. Similarly, while some evidence suggests that the distinction between ‘active’ and ‘passive’ social media use may offer more nuanced insights than total time spent,24 it remains narrow in scope.46 Finally, while the large and diverse sample enhances generalizability, it is still limited to the UK context, and findings may not fully apply to other cultural settings.

Social media and the loneliness epidemic are the same picture. If we want our society to heal and stop being so dramatically polarized, we need to eat the rich and get everyone off social media. And get everyone educated to high school graduate level at a minimum.

There's a reason that the answer to any problem is never "Go on facebook more". I don't think there's a controversy at all. Some people can manage a healthy balance and some people can't.