I’m working on a campaign against the use of Facebook by gov administrations. So far I have like 20 or so pages covering human rights violations by the gov when they impose the use of Facebook. But I have not yet written anything about addiction or mental health in this context.

I have never used Facebook myself, so I’m working somewhat blind. The question is whether Facebook is addictive and ultimately to what extent can it be faulted for mental health issues. I mean, of course it’s addictive to some extent, as is just about everything and anything. But the question is whether it can reasonably be argued that when a government pushes the use of Facebook onto people, is the gov significantly undermining people’s human right to living in good health? Or is that a far-fetched or crazy enough that it would actually dilute the campaign against gov-forced use of FB?

  • evenwichtOP
    1·
    7 个月前

    I’m not sure how much research you’ve done, but a quick search of “Facebook addiction peer reviewed”

    Thanks… indeed adding /peer reviewed/ helps.

    It’s also probably worth digging into dark patterns used by Facebook and others to keep users coming back/focused on their feed.

    Glad you mentioned that… I might have overlooked it otherwise. The gov might argue (perhaps internally) that social networking is naturally addictive and that it’s an unavoidable nature of the beast. But Facebook (and likely Twitter) deliberately designs their platforms to artificially supercharge the addictiveness. So I will make that the focus of the addiction discussion, to separate Facebook from Lemmyverse.

    I’d also be prepared for the counter argument: “governments are only using Facebook because that’s where the people are”.

    I’m not sure my compaign will get any express feedback from opposition, but I will stress that the “network effect” feeds into the addiction as well as creates the power imbalance.