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:
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?
That’s a very funny typo. But also kinda relevant. Lemmy’s sorting “algorithm” is just a very basic sort. There’s no personal tuning, just basic “does this post have more activity than this other one” so it’s as un addictive as it can get really. Short of purposefully trying to be bad.
Yes but since its users are mostly reposting from sites trained on said algorithms. There is certainly a “trickle down” effect.
Posts that weren’t popular on Reddit, or on the news website aren’t going to be seen and then posted here…