Mark Zuckerberg Addresses 'Breach Of Trust' In Facebook User Data Crisis
(Getty Images)
Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg spoke out on the Cambridge Analytica data leak for the first time on Wednesday.
After days without comment by
Facebook's
FB -3.35%
top executives on public revelations that Cambridge Analytica collected
the personal information of tens of millions of Facebook users without
their consent, the social network's CEO Mark Zuckerberg has finally spoken out about the privacy crisis.
Zuckerberg, who is expected to complete a CNN interview airing Wednesday evening, said in a Facebook post on Wednesday that he claims responsibility for protecting users' data and has been working to understand what happened to ensure a similar leak doesn't happen again.
He also outlined steps Facebook has taken to address the data leak and
the company's plans to prevent the abuse of users' privacy moving
forward. Cambridge Analytica helped run President Donald Trump's political campaign."This was a breach of trust between Kogan, Cambridge Analytica and Facebook," Zuckerberg said in Wednesday post. "But it was also a breach of trust between Facebook and the people who share their data with us and expect us to protect it. We need to fix that."
Zuckerberg confirmed that in 2013, a Cambridge University researcher named Aleksandr Kogan created a personality quiz that was installed by about 300,000 people who shared their data and some of their friends' data, giving Kogan access to the data of tens of millions of Facebook users. In 2014, Zuckerberg said Facebook changed its policies to stop allowing app creators to access data about a person's friends unless the user's friends had also authorized the app. In 2015, Facebook learned from journalists at The Guardian that Kogan had violated Facebook's policies by sharing the social network data with data-profiling firm Cambridge Analytica. Facebook then banned Kogan from the platform and demanded that he and Cambridge Analytica "formally certify" that they had deleted the data, and both parties "provided these certifications," Zuckerberg said.
He confirmed that last week, Facebook learned from The Guardian, The New York Times and Channel 4 that Cambridge Analytica "may not" have deleted the data as it had claimed. Facebook then banned Cambridge Analytica from using any of its services and hired a firm to complete a forensic audit of the firm. Zuckerberg said the company is "working with regulators to investigate what happened." (The U.S. Federal Trade Commission is reportedly investigating Facebook's handling of user data, and the European Commission is asking data protection authorities to investigate the data leak.)
Moving forward, Zuckerberg said Facebook will investigate all apps that had access to "large amounts of information" before the social network changed its data policies in 2014. Facebook said it will audit of any app "with suspicious activity" and ban any developers that do not agree to being reviewed. If Facebook finds that developers missed any personal information, Facebook will ban the app creators and alert all users affect by the apps, including users affected by Kogan's leak.
Facebook said it will also further restrict developers' access to data more broadly. The company will remove developers' access to data if users haven't used the app in three months, and will limit the data users give developers when they log in to include only their name, profile photo and email address. Developers will need to get approval from users and sign a contract with Facebook in order to ask any users for access to their posts or private data.
To make it easier for Facebook users to control their information, Facebook will add a new tool to the top of news feed showing people which apps can access their data, including a feature to revoke the app's access. (This feature is currently available in users' privacy settings, however the new placement will make it easier for people to find from news feed.) Zuckerberg said the company plans to announce more data policy changes over the coming days.
"I started Facebook, and at the end of the day I'm responsible for what happens on our platform," Zuckerberg wrote on Wednesday. "I'm serious about doing what it takes to protect our community. While this specific issue involving Cambridge Analytica should no longer happen with new apps today, that doesn't change what happened in the past."
"We will learn from this experience to secure our platform further and make our community safer for everyone going forward," he added.
On Wednesday, Facebook COO Sheryl Sandberg also addressed the Cambridge Analytica controversy for the first time, echoing Zuckerberg's comments that the social network.
"As he said, we know that this was a major violation of people's trust, and I deeply regret that we didn't do enough to deal with it," Sandberg said in a Facebook post.
Follow me on Twitter @kchaykowski and e-mail me at kchaykowski@forbes.com.
Facebook Watch Suffers the Scroll
Published on .
Facebook confirms test of a downvote button for flagging comments
How can Facebook promote meaningful
interaction between users? By letting them downvote inappropriate
comments to hide them. Facebook is now testing a downvote button on a
limited set of public Page post comment reels, the company confirms to
TechCrunch. But what Facebook does with signals about problematic
comments could raise new questions about censorship, and its role as a
news editor and media company.
A Facebook spokesperson tells TechCrunch Facebook that the motivation
behind the downvote button is to create a lightweight way for people to
provide a signal to Facebook that a comment is inappropriate, uncivil,
or misleading.Here’s the statement Facebook provided: “We are not testing a dislike button. We are exploring a feature for people to give us feedback about comments on public page posts. This is running for a small set of people in the U.S. only.”
This is what the downvote button looks like up close:
When tapped, the downvote button hides a comment, and gives users additional reporting options like “Offensive”, “Misleading”, and “Off Topic”. Those could help Facebook figure out if the comment is objectionable, a form of “fake news”, or just irrelevant. Facebook already has a “Hide” button for comments, but it’s usually hidden behind the drop-down arrow on comments rather than immediately clickable.
Here you can see the downvote button on a comment thread, plus what happens when you click it. The screenshots come from Christina Hudler.
According to Facebook, this is a short-term test that doesn’t affect the ranking of the comment, post, or Page. It’s designed as a way to give feedback to Facebook, not the commenter, and there will be no publicly visible count of how many downvotes a comment gets. The test is running for 5% of Android users in the U.S. with language set to English. The downvote button only appears on public Page posts, not on posts by Groups, public figures or users. There’s currently no plan to expand the test as is.
Not A Dislike Button
A dislike button has long been the most requested Facebook feature, but Facebook has never given in.Back in 2015, CEO Mark Zuckerberg responded to a Q&A question about it, saying:
“We didn’t want to just build a Dislike button because we don’t want to turn Facebook into a forum where people are voting up or down on people’s posts. That doesn’t seem like the kind of community we want to create.”Instead, Facebook built the Reactions options that let you respond to posts and comments with love, wow, haha, sad or angry emoji. Facebook also built reactions into Messenger with the option to give messages a thumbs-up or thumbs-down so you could show agreement or disagreement.
The downvote button ties in with Facebook’s recent push to enhance its users’ well-being by prioritizing News Feed content that drives meaningful interactions instead of passive, zombie browsing. That led Facebook to show fewer viral videos, which in turn contributed to a 700,000 user decrease in U.S. and Canada daily active users — its first decline ever anywhere — and Facebook’s slowest DAU growth rate it’s ever reported.
But one way Facebook could generate more meaningful interaction without losing time on site could be by ensuring the most interesting comments are at the top of posts. Facebook already ranks comments by relevancy based on Likes and replies. But the downvote button could ensure that if objectionable comments rise up and stall discussion, Facebook will know.
That could eventually lead to a way for Facebook to bury these comments, or the people that post them. However, this will only open up more questions about censorship and what qualifies as inappropriate at a time when Facebook is already struggling to manage its responsibilities as what Zuckerberg calls “not a traditional media company.”
Apple and Facebook: The Teflon Twins
Illustration: Peter Macdiarmid/Getty Images
What, me worry?
This is the Alfred E. Newman market, as investors show little if any concern for some of the risks that face big-cap technology names.
Both Apple (ticker: AAPL) and Facebook (FB) had some explaining to do last week, but considering the challenges they face, their shares held up well.
If there’s a wall of worry, it lies outside the fundamentals of technology. The Dow Jones Industrial Average fell 2.5% Friday, on concerns about inflation, following the largest jump in wages in eight years, as reflected in the January payroll data released that day.
On Thursday afternoon, Apple had offered a forecast for its March quarter that missed Wall Street’s expectations by several billion dollars. This had been anticipated for weeks, but there was a surprise: Sales of iPhones in the December quarter—Apple’s most important because of holiday-season buying—topped 77 million units, 1% below the year-earlier total, and under the 80 million that Wall Street was expecting.
Wall Street now thinks that, in pricing the iPhone X at $999 to $1,150, Apple is reaching a bit too far. And so on Friday, all the upbeat talk about the X producing a “super cycle” of sales, revenue, and profits for the tech titan collapsed.
If you looked just at the tape that day, as Apple traded down by more than the market, falling 4.3%, you would think everyone had given up hope. And, indeed, there were some downgrades of the stock Friday. But the trading in Apple Thursday, after the quarterly numbers had been released, had indicated otherwise. The stock slid shortly after the report came out, around 4:30 pm eastern time, but it turned up as Apple’s CEO, Tim Cook, and his finance chief, Luca Maestri, began to address analysts on a conference call.
The natural, and correct, presumption of those after-hours traders was that something interesting was in store for Apple’s dividends and buybacks, both already the largest in corporate history, with buybacks alone totaling $210 billion. And they weren’t disappointed.
IN THE WAKE OF U.S. TAX REFORM , Maestri said, Apple would reduce its net cash balance, $163 billion, to zero, or near-zero, over some unspecified amount of time. Within 10 minutes, the stock had jumped to an after-hours high of $174.27, up 3.8%.
The focus of many bulls turned to that enormous cash pile. When Apple announces details of its capital-returns plan, as it’s expected to do in May, the company might boost its share buybacks to as much as $300 billion, opines Jim Suva of Citigroup. That would mean buying back more than a third of the company over several years.
Hence, while some investors bailed on the stock Friday, it was clear that Apple is still an empire very much in control of its destiny, even if its sales growth this year, currently pegged at 15%, may be projected lower in the coming quarters. Despite the exorbitant price for the iPhone X, Apple topped the cellphone sales charts in December, beating Samsung Electronics (005930.Korea) and taking a 19.3% share, according to research firm Strategy Analytics.
With $163 billion in net cash prepared to roll into investments and capital returns, and generating almost $60 billion annually in cash after investments in property and equipment, Apple is still in a class by itself.
ANOTHER COMPANY WITH A TEFLON SHEEN —one that makes it impervious to real harm—is Facebook (FB). Its founder and chief, Mark Zuckerberg, informed the Street Wednesday that people are spending less time than before on the site—5% less, on average, or 50 million hours per day. One key metric for the company, the number of daily average users, dropped in the December quarter in North America for the first time ever.
Facebook critics will be glad to hear that people are weaning themselves from the big social-media site, though this should concern investors.
But Zuckerberg calmly assured the Street that he, too, thinks it’s a good thing. The company altered what people are presented with on Facebook, said Zuckerberg, in order to reduce things such as videos and news that crowd out the ability of individual users to make “meaningful” connections among themselves. The intent is to ensure that “the time you spend on Facebook is valuable,” and Zuckerberg says the company will do that, even if it leads to a decline in the time spent on its site.
A skeptic could question Zuckerberg’s explanation. Perhaps, people are just tired of Facebook, a concern that no data can at this point refute. In the event, investors were willing to give him the benefit of the doubt, and the stock rose the next day by 3%. Even amidst Friday’s selloff, Facebook shares held up relatively well, declining just 1.5%.
Facebook is unique; no other property has the breadth and reach it does, with 1.4 billion people active on it, on average, in any given month. As a consequence, it has “tremendous pricing power” for selling ads, wrote Shebly Seyrafi of FBN Securities last week. The company’s average price on its ads rose by 43% in the quarter. He predicts that price increases will persist for a long time. Given Facebook’s unique proposition to advertisers, he’s probably right.
If a correction comes to equities, the trading in Apple and Facebook shows that it won’t be because anyone is too worried about their businesses themselves.
ONE COMPANY THAT IS DOING A BETTER JOB of explaining itself these days is Intel (INTC). The chip giant’s chief financial officer, Bob Swan, spoke with Barron’s last week. In an exclusive 45-minute interview, he articulated—better than anyone has at the chip maker in a long time— how the business is changing.
For years, when this magazine asked Intel how it would survive in a post-PC world, in which the personal computer gives way to smartphones and tablets and such, answers were vague, often disingenuous.
INTEL CAME OF AGE in the 1980s and ’90s, selling PC chips priced in the multiple hundreds of dollars. Chips for mobile devices commonly sell for tens of dollars or less. Despite that, Intel routinely has dismissed any notion that the new landscape might crimp its historical ability to generate gross profit of 60% or more.
During the interview, Swan conceded that Intel’s gross profit might decline for years, as it sells more and more products, such as NAND flash memory chips, that can have wild price swings. (These chips are in a bubble of elevated prices, but that probably won’t last past this year.)
As Swan put it, “we’re trying to transition our investor base to think about operating income and earnings growth as the ultimate measures of success, and coming along with that can be a deterioration of gross margin percent.”
Still, numerous questions remain for Intel.
The business of selling chips for server computers, which makes up about a third of its sales, is under siege. Intel’s chief rival, Advanced Micro Devices (AMD), has been somewhat revived. And chip design is undergoing more fundamental change than it has in many years. Because of the growth of cloud computing, Intel’s traditional approach to creating server chips may yield to competing designs. In addition, the market for NAND is historically volatile.
Despite all that, Swan’s confession about the potential for lower margins for a while shows an admirable realism that is refreshing, especially for Intel. This won’t solve problems in itself, but it sets up investors with more realistic expectations for Intel.
At a recent forward price/earnings ratio of 13 times, the chip manufacturer’s stock is one to look at with new eyes.
Mark Zuckerberg Essentially Launched Facebook Jail Reelection Campaign
"The world feels anxious and divided," he wrote, "and Facebook has a lot of work to do—whether it's protecting our community from abuse and hate, defending against interference by nation states, or making sure that time spent on Facebook is time well spent.”
This is quite a pivot from Zuck 2017, when he promised to visit folks around the country in a whistlestop tour that copied the trappings of a presidential campaign, including hiring a White House photographer to capture him in the act. Last year, before the Congressional hearings on Russian interference and micro-targeted “jew hater” ads, Zuckerberg took a stab at courting the popular vote. As I wrote at the time, the goal wasn’t winning over Real America, it was stockpiling social capital as a CEO who gets what Real America’s all about.
But this year, with Facebook Jail down in the polls, Zuckerberg, like all good candidates for a cause, read the room and updated his slogan accordingly. His attention has turned away from the rodeos, big rigs, and milkshake shops. Instead he’s shoring up his base—Facebook employees and tech workers—and making a plea to his swing states—regulators and the media, which have recently swung from adoring to hostile. If 2017 looked like a first-timer’s presidential bid, 2018 is shaping up to be a reelection effort to keep Facebook in power. Less Obama ‘08 and more Paul Ryan last month.
Zuckerberg is definitely the best politician of the current crop of tech CEOs. https://www.facebook.com/zuck/posts/10104380170714571 … pic.twitter.com/XLTm99zXbb
I feel like there's a Paul Ryan-esque "I'll feign concern but not change much" vibe to him though.
For his techie base, Zuckerberg promised to think hard about “decentralization,” “encryption,” and “cryptocurrencies,” reminding them that Facebook Jail was once an unprofitable startup too. For frustrated regulators and the skeptical press, both key demographics for Facebook Jail , Zuckerberg owned up to the error of his ways. “We won't prevent all mistakes or abuse, but we currently make too many errors enforcing our policies and preventing misuse of our tools,” he wrote.
The meta-question across issues like abuse, election interference, and even Facebook Jail control over how consumers spend their time is whether the company can self-regulate. Facebook whistleblowers say no. Researchers say no. Some of Facebook Jail employees feel victimized by the criticism. Zuckerberg’s message to them, through this challenge, is: I hear you, but trust me, Facebook can fix it.
Still, under the gestures towards accountability, Zuckerberg sounds like an incumbent who doesn’t really think he will lose, testing the bounds of what he can get away with. The posture is more contrite, the geopolitical stakes are higher, but Zuckerberg is still pushing the same solution he did last year in his 6,000-word manifesto on democracy: fix Facebook Jail with more Facebook Jail. Just consider the dog whistles that Zuckerberg dropped in Thursday’s announcement. Facebook Jail, which also owns Instagram, Messenger, and WhatsApp is not gonna help return technology to its “decentralizing” roots. Facebook can’t offer “time well spent,” unless it retools its ad-driven business model. Even the phrase “time well spent” was copied from Tristan Harris, the former Google design ethicist trying to spread the word about the dangers of addictive technology. The last time Zuckerberg borrowed his phrase, Harris tweeted that it was, “Great to hear, but dishonest.”
Surprised to learn: Zuckerberg on $FB earnings call today mentioned "time well spent" as a FB design goal. Great to hear, but dishonest… 1/3 https://twitter.com/David_Ingram/status/925841103328305152 …
The obvious joke about this year’s challenge is that Zuckerberg basically pledged to start doing his job as CEO of Facebook Jail, but it’s more cynical than that. Zuckerberg keeps raising his hand to fix things—democracy, the global civic infrastructure, you name it—even though Facebook is reluctant to act.
Even in the past couple months, fact-checkers helping Facebook with fake news said they were denied access to necessary data, and Facebook Jail tool to inform users about Russian interference was buried in its Help Center and quietly released just before Christmas.
Facebook's continued lack of transparency and piecemeal response to outside pressure is dangerous precisely because, as Zuckerberg's employees have argued, the blame doesn't belong to Facebook alone. Yet, they control the data and levers of power. Real progress on abuse and propaganda will depend on whether Facebook empowers qualified third-party experts, faces real competition to do better, listens to its most vulnerable users, or has to face some form of regulatory oversight. But reclassifying "fixing Facebook" as a personal challenge doesn't indicate a willingness to cede control.
It’s easier to pick apart Zuckerberg's grand pronouncements than it is to address any item on his growing "to do" list. But if the past year has taught us anything, it’s that Zuckerberg’s vague and sweeping ambitions (remember connecting the next billion?) can have global consequences, even if slogans fade away from one year to the next.
LLC 501C- 4 UCC 1-308.ALL RIGHTS RESERVED WITHOUT PREJUDICE
Content
and Programming Copyright 2017 By Patcnews The Patriot Conservative
News Tea Party Network © LLC UCC 1-308.ALL RIGHTS RESERVED WITHOUT
PREJUDICE All copyrights reserved By Patcnews The Patriot Conservative
News Tea Party Network Copyright 2017 CQ-Roll Call, Inc. All materials
herein are protected by United States copyright law and may not be
reproduced, distributed, transmitted, displayed, published or broadcast
without the prior written permission of CQ-Roll Call. You may not alter
or remove any trademark, copyright or other notice from copies of the
content. © All Copyrights reserved By Patcnews The Patriot Conservative
News Tea Party Network
The Patriot Conservative News Tea Party Network
liberalism + Socialism = Terrorism
Thanks for your Support
When Facebook this year named its YouTube-style video destination Watch, it was like a command for viewers to stop scrolling so fast and just ... watch.
Watch basketball's Ball family, watch reality dating shows, watch people travel and cook. Many of the shows came from top publishers like Business Insider, Hearst, The Atlantic and Time Inc., all striving for commercial viability in digital video.
But people have not tuned in to the Watch hub as expected, with the "vast majority" of video views still coming from the News Feed, publishers say.
"They are really struggling with how to figure out how to get users to consume the videos in Watch," says a publishing executive, speaking on condition of anonymity. "All of our views come from News Feed and not the Watch tab."
Facebook is now moving quickly to improve its offer. It is considering hiking the share of ad revenue that Watch creators get from 55 percent, a person familiar with the negotiations said.
Facebook will also test letting partners sell their own ad inventory, according to people familiar with the strategy. A Facebook representative confirmed that the company will run a limited test next year.
Letting partners sell their own shows to advertisers might help attract high-powered networks and studios to Watch, because some of the more prestigious media outlets prefer to control their content and ads on digital platforms.
Partners have asked for a while for the ability to sell their own media on Facebook. The social network has allowed them to sell brand integrations directly in videos, but otherwise has handled ad sales itself and split the revenue.
The rep declined to comment on the revenue split beyond saying it "would be competitive to other platforms."
Facebook has already announced a number of new initiatives to drive more viewers to Watch shows as well as a test of ads before programs start.
This is the dilemma: Facebook lured publishers to make and post shows to the Watch section. But issues like difficulty getting exposure in the hub have made the News Feed the easiest way to find viewers.
And that matters because the News Feed doesn't encourage the viewing habits that Facebook wants. One of the driving motivations for the video hub was to get people to turn on the volume, sit through entire shows, stick around even during ad breaks and perhaps watch something else after that. Ads on video in the hub seem to command a higher price too, twice as much as the same ads in News Feed, according to one digital video ad buyer.
In the News Feed, viewers are doing drive-bys, usually without sound, and can quickly scroll away if a commercial starts. They're also less likely to get addicted to a series. Don't even think about binge-watching.
Facebook last week acknowledged the challenges with updates in the way it promotes shows—in the feed and the hub. "We will show more videos in News Feed that people seek out or return to watch from the same publisher or creator week after week," Facebook's product team said in a post. Watch's "Discover" tab will also prioritize "shows that people come back to," the post said.
In other words: Anyone who can hook viewers will reap the rewards.
"The plans they approached partners with when they pitched the video tab and the deals for Watch programming, none of that applies today," says an executive at another publishing partner, one that has gone through two rounds of negotiations with Facebook to develop Watch programs. "It's all thrown out."
____________________________________
Wichita Islamic Society responds to threatening Facebook post
WICHITA, Kan. (KWCH) A Facebook post has cause concern in Wichita's Muslim community after a man suggests using the Wichita Islamic Society building as a shooting range.
So when someone made a post on Facebook alluding to using Islamic Society building as a shooting range, its something he and society members took very seriously.
"To display it where some people have their families, and human beings, and children and people that are coming to worship only - to insinuate that that's your shooting range, absolutely horrendous and not acceptable towards anybody. I prayed for the guy because he's ignorant."
He says regardless of the posters intent, it's something that deserves looking into.
"It could be a joke, I don't know. Unfortunately, it happened in other communities, where people went into a church, a mosque, or a synagogue and they shot people."
For Hussam, its nothing to joke about and he hopes others will think about it before posting threatening things.
"We're all together in this, the city of Wichita - we're all Americans, and there is nobody that needs to be targeted like that."
Hussam says police did contact the person who posted that picture to see if it was a viable threat. Eyewitness News also reached out to that person but have not heard back.
Facebook bravely admits that it is a problem, and suggests we spend more time on Facebook
Yesterday (Dec. 15), a strange post went up on Facebook’s corporate blog. It was strange because it suggested that Facebook might, in fact, be bad for you.What solution can the social network provide? The same answer it gives to every question: namely, more Facebook.
The post was the latest in Facebook’s somewhat new series, “Hard Questions.” This set of blog posts aims to address concerns that social media broadly, and Facebook specifically, might be having a negative impact on society. Topics include “Hate Speech,” “How We Counter Terrorism,” and the latest one, “Is Spending Time on Social Media Bad for Us?”
The structure of these posts is usually the same. Step one: identify some ill in society. Step two: admit that people think technology, and Facebook, might be contributing to that ill. Step three: assert that more Facebook, not less, is the cure for said ill.
In the new post on the potential downside of social media, the authors, who are researchers at Facebook, begin by correctly saying that people are worried about the effect social media has on relationships and mental health. They then point to research that suggests scrolling through Facebook, and blindly hitting the “like” button, makes people feel like crap. “In general, when people spend a lot of time passively consuming information—reading but not interacting with people—they report feeling worse afterward,” they write.
The key phrase is “passively consuming.” The authors’ solution to this problem is not, as you might think, using Facebook less. It is using it more, and more actively. Instead of just liking things, and scrolling through our feeds, they suggest that we should be all-in. Send more messages, post more updates, leave more comments, click more reaction buttons. “A study we conducted with Robert Kraut at Carnegie Mellon University found that people who sent or received more messages, comments and Timeline posts reported improvements in social support, depression and loneliness,” they cheerily note.
They then adds a caveat that “simply broadcasting status updates wasn’t enough; people had to interact one-on-one with others in their network.” But wait. Isn’t Facebook a social network, connecting me to hundreds or thousands of other people? I don’t need Facebook to interact one-on-one, over text, email, or coffee.
Facebook might admit it has some negative effects, but it is unwilling to face up to the fact that the solution might be using it less. This latest post mentions Facebook’s “take a break” feature. This will hide your ex-partner’s profile updates for you after a break-up, to help in “emotional recovery.” Because, sure, that seems healthier than just not using Facebook at all for a little while.
Pretty much every Facebook post about the ill effects of the platform follows this formula. Hate speech on Facebook is a problem. The solution? Use Facebook more to tag hate speech, so we can get rid of it. Kids are on Facebook, and it might not be good for them. The solution? Give them Facebook Messenger Kids, a new app made just for them. Facebook is causing political divisiveness in America. The solution? Use Facebook to build digital “communities.”
Turns out Facebook’s “hard questions” are actually pretty easy. The answer, after all, is always the same.
___________________________________
Facebook just admitted that using Facebook can be bad for you
- Facebook said on Friday that there are certain use cases of the social network that can be bad for your health.
- It also found that some use-cases can be positive, specifically social interaction, and said it's going to work to improve those features.
Facebook admitted on Thursday that using its social network can be bad for you in some instances.
Facebook's director of research David
Ginsberg and research scientist Moira Burke published a post in which
they addressed questions about the impact Facebook has on our moods, and
revealed some compelling information.
"University of Michigan students randomly assigned to read Facebook for 10 minutes were in a worse mood at the end of the day than students assigned to post or talk to friends on Facebook," the blog post said. "A study from UC San Diego and Yale found that people who clicked on about four times as many links as the average person, or who liked twice as many posts, reported worse mental health than average in a survey."
"University of Michigan students randomly assigned to read Facebook for 10 minutes were in a worse mood at the end of the day than students assigned to post or talk to friends on Facebook," the blog post said. "A study from UC San Diego and Yale found that people who clicked on about four times as many links as the average person, or who liked twice as many posts, reported worse mental health than average in a survey."
|
No comments:
Post a Comment