Participants were measurably happier and less anxious.

But, disappointingly, not by a huge margin:

Perhaps this is due to the fact a significant number of users switched to less harmful online platforms and didn’t stop using their phones.

Or perhaps there is actually something more sinister. My real concern with this study is the involvement of Meta.

We actually have evidence that Meta halted internal research about social media:

https://www.reuters.com/sustainability/boards-policy-regulation/meta-buried-causal-evidence-social-media-harm-us-court-filings-allege-2025-11-23/

Would you study tobacco and have tobacco companies involved?

Would you study obesity and have Coca-Cola involved?

I don’t want to sound like a conspiracy theorist, but could Meta actually bully/bribe Stanford in order to change the figures?

  • pelespirit@sh.itjust.works
    44·
    21 hours ago

    I don’t want to sound like a conspiracy theorist, but could Meta actually bully/bribe Stanford to change the figures?

    Asking questions about who’s paying for the study isn’t being a conspiracy theorist. Especially Meta, they’re evil af. They seem to be cautious as well.

    This project is part of the U.S. 2020 Facebook and Instagram Election Study (Gonz´alez- Bail´on et al. 2023; Guess et al. 2023a,b; Nyhan et al. 2023; Allcott et al. 2024), a partnership between Meta researchers and unpaid independent academics. Under the terms of the collab- oration, the independent academic authors had final authority over the pre-analysis plan, data analysis, and manuscript text, and Meta could not block any results from being published. More details of this partnership are in Appendices E and F. We have posted answers to frequently asked questions online at this website.