Facebook, citing academic research, says people “passively consuming” social media feel worse afterwards while active interaction improves well-being
and perhaps even more so than offline, since people's posts are often more curated and flattering.” http://twitter.com/... Casey Newton / @caseynewton : This is just an absolutely remarkable corporate blog post. http://twitter.com/... Farhad Manjoo / @fmanjoo : It seems to me like a PRETTY BIG DEAL that Facebook is admitting, and citing academic research, that in some instances spending time on social media is bad for you. http://newsroom.fb.com/... http://twitter.com/... Nick Bilton / @nickbilton : Facebook responds to a slew of former execs saying that Facebook sucks by acknowledging that Facebook sometimes sucks. http://newsroom.fb.com/... Sarah Frier / @sarahfrier : FB says that getting you to use it actively is better for you than passively, which is why they prompt you to share and connect so much. Ziad Ramley / @ziadramley : Facebook researchers David Ginsberg and Moira Burke (@grammarnerd) argue “it's about how you use social media,” not social media itself, that matters when it comes to your well-being. https://newsroom.fb.com/... Ziad Ramley / @ziadramley : I think the fact that Facebook is now having this conversation publicly is an extremely important step in tackling what many perceive to be two key problems with social media: anti-social behavior and negative psychological impact. Ziad Ramley / @ziadramley : Obviously Facebook are going to protect their own interests here. The fact that people might quit en masse because they think social is harmful is an existential threat. But this post does a good job in acknowledging the reality of the situation and presenting data. Natt / @nattgarun : “We want Facebook to be a place for meaningful interactions with your friends and family” https://newsroom.fb.com/... Also lol your friends are annoying af https://www.theverge.com/... pic.twitter.com/LblM6rCYHY See also Mediagazer
Context & Ripple Effects
In late 2017, Facebook researchers David Ginsberg and Moira Burke published a rare corporate concession: academic work cited by the company itself found that passively scrolling the feed leaves people feeling worse, while active interaction improves well-being. The post landed amid a wave of public criticism from former executives, and reporters like Casey Newton and Farhad Manjoo flagged how unusual it was for Facebook to admit any version of 'social media is bad for you.'
The concession reads differently in hindsight. By 2020, Zuckerberg and others had reportedly shelved internal research on Facebook's polarizing effect rather than apply it to products, and a 2021 well-being team survey found 12.5% of participants reporting compulsive use that harmed their lives — while NPR's reporting showed the company's published mental-health findings resting on self-reported views and small samples.
First-order effects
- Facebook publicly accepts, in its own newsroom voice, that feed design choices carry measurable well-being costs — handing critics like Nick Bilton and Farhad Manjoo a company-sourced citation for arguments they had been making without one.
- The passive-versus-active framing puts the burden on Facebook's product teams, since passive consumption is precisely what an engagement-optimized News Feed maximizes.
Second-order effects
- Once Facebook establishes the precedent of commissioning well-being research, that same research apparatus becomes a liability: internal findings on polarization and compulsive use later surface through leaks rather than publication, forcing the company to defend both its products and its research conduct.
- Methodological scrutiny follows the company's claims — the same self-reported, small-sample critique NPR applied to Facebook's teen mental-health research applies to any finding the company selectively cites or shelves.
Third-order effects
- Platform-commissioned science shifts from a public-relations asset to an evidentiary record that regulators, journalists, and litigators can subpoena or leak, raising the cost of every internal study Facebook chooses to run — or suppress.
- If the pattern holds, the durable question for the industry becomes governance of internally held harm research: who decides what gets published, and whether 'we studied it' strengthens or destroys trust depends entirely on disclosure.
The trend: Social platforms' own commissioned research is evolving from a defensive PR instrument into the primary documentary record against which their products are judged.