
Facebook Is Making Us Miserable - mvs
http://blogs.hbr.org/cs/2011/12/facebook_is_making_us_miserabl.html
======
mattblalock
HackerNews makes me sad sometimes, too. Seeing everyone's successes, silly
stories with the gang, witty blog post, mind-blowing hockey-stick-shaped-
charts of "how we got to our 900 millionth user!" ... I'm working 12 hour days
doing like 11 jobs, making just enough money to convince myself "in just a few
months" I'll find that thing that ticks and then it'll be us making hockey-
stick-shaped-growth-charts and finally buying that island ive had my eye on...
but even then, the island isn't totally private, so i should probably work
harder then i can get a bigger and more private island, one that is fire-
resistant and erosion-proof. But shit, look, is that guy competing with me? Do
I need to burn his island down? Are there enough customers? Where's the money
gone? Wait, why aren't there any customers? Where's all this retail revenue
going? I don't see them in the stores, the postal service can barely make ends
meet (must not be ecommerce), and then the search volume is low, too, but the
customers are coming in, we're selling stuff, we promise... not in America,
you're not.

........

I've noticed that by cutting out HN, I am happier and feel more positive about
my business.

~~~
iamandrus
Agreed. Almost all of the advice on HN is well-intended, but some stories are
just big negative walls of text about how my business plan is shit, how I'm an
idiot, and how my idea is stupid. By cutting out HN sometimes, I can get
things done without overstressing myself thinking about my startup in a
negative light.

------
gojomo
I'm beginning to wonder if Facebook – along with online games and other free
diversions like YouTube – could even be contributing to economic malaise and
unemployment.

It's cheaper and easier than ever to acquire a minimal sustaining reward-drip
of novelty and even 'social' strokes via the free net. If savings, family, or
public support are enough to keep someone fed, sheltered, and online… then
perhaps their willingness to seek and accept a paid job has gone down.

Even if this is not the case for most unemployed, at the margin, there are
likely to be _some_ people who, without
Facebook/Farmville/YouTube/WorldOfWarcraft/etc., would feel so bored and
isolated they'd take on drudge work. Because these diversions are available,
they don't.

What if 'gamification' and long-term unemployment/underemployment are
connected?

~~~
prodigal_erik
McDonald's held a "National Hiring Day" this year, and accepted 62,000
applications _out of a million_. Even near-minimum-wage drudge work is scarce
compared to the number who will take it.

[http://thecashflowisking.com/2011/04/30/1000000-applicants-f...](http://thecashflowisking.com/2011/04/30/1000000-applicants-
for-mcdonalds-gives-a-representation-of-the-national-employment-situation/)

~~~
yummyfajitas
That's a statistical fallacy along the same lines as "we only hire the top
1%".

<http://www.joelonsoftware.com/items/2005/01/27.html>

~~~
hello_moto
I'm trying to connect the dot here... What's the scarcity of job has anything
to do with hiring the top 1% fallacy?

~~~
yummyfajitas
Following Joel Spolsky's logic, there could easily be 938000 people who are
unqualified for any job. On the other hand, every single one of the 62,000
qualified people who applied was hired. Thus, all employers will have low
hiring rates, and yet finding a job is easy for qualified applicants.

If you want to talk about scarcity of jobs, look at JOLTS data or even
traditional BLS timeseries.

Talking about how one particular employer rejected a lot of applicants tells
you virtually nothing.

~~~
ryanklee
> any job

This is McDonalds. I'm having trouble thinking of employment for which more
people are qualified if at least (1) able-bodied and (2) have at least a
middle-school education. There is virtually nothing beyond those requirements
that needs to be taken into consideration. If 938000 applicants were rejected,
I can only assume that the majority of the rejections were for reasons other
than lack of qualification.

~~~
yummyfajitas
You are missing one important qualification to work at McD's: (3)
conscientiousness.

When the boss says "someone pooped in the urinal", a McDonald's employee needs
to say "yes sir" and go put on gloves. They also need to show up to work on
time, take the 6AM shift when asked to, etc. Not all people are willing to do
this.

According to many sociologists, a large number of lower class Americans lack
conscientiousness. Go read this dead-tree book, for example (sorry, online
sources are hard to find):

[http://www.amazon.com/Promises-Can-Keep-Motherhood-
Marriage/...](http://www.amazon.com/Promises-Can-Keep-Motherhood-
Marriage/dp/0520248198/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1323532894&sr=8-1)

The focus of the book is on why poor single women choose to become single
mothers, but it gives a great look into the work habits of the lower classes
as well.

~~~
ryanklee
Interesting, but doesn't the act of applying for a job itself guarantee to at
least some extent that an applicant is conscientious?

~~~
danudey
Not even remotely. I worked at an EB Games (hardly a prestigious retail
outlet, but pretty decent). I had stoned-looking, unshaven, greasy-haired
teenagers in ripped clothes and baggy jeans stagger into my store as if they
were stoned out of their minds, throw down a folded-in-quarters resume on the
counter, and say 'I'd like a job'. When I said 'Thanks, we'll let you know'
they wandered off to play on the demo Xbox for ten minutes and then left.

Another guy came in, an overweight, sweaty, hillbilly-looking man in ratty
jeans and a flannel shirt so worn out that there were obvious holes in the
armpits, and I got the sense that hygiene was as important to him as fashion.

Then there's the women who come in with their son's resume (and occasionally
even their sons) and try to get them a job.

I'd like to say 'For every talented, worthwhile individual we saw ten of
these', but in three years of working there, I don't recall having spoken to a
single person that made me think 'Hey, we should hire this guy', but I saw one
person after another like this, people so unqualified for the job that I
couldn't help but wonder if they really wanted to be employed at all, or if
their parents or girlfriends were just tired of them lazing around the house
and smoking pot and were forcing them to pretend to make an attempt.

My manager at EB used to manage a McDonald's, and he became one of those
people who refuses to leave the drive-thru until he's gone through everything
he ordered to make sure it's what he asked for. The reason? He's had to do
hiring. The kids that are too blasted out of their minds to accomplish
anything? The ones that stand there like idiots until you give them specific,
detailed, step-by-step instructions which they immediately forget? The ones
that don't actually understand what's happening, never really know how to do
their jobs, and never take action on their own? Those, he said, were _the best
applicants he got_. He hired these people because everyone else who applied
was incapable of doing simple tasks even when instructed. These people were
the _cream of the crop_.

So when McDonald's says they hired 6.2% of the people who applied to them, I
also have a hard time believing them. I can't help but think, 'Really? That
many? They must be desperate.'

------
danko
It's absolutely true that Facebook encourages a sort of 'happiness' arms race,
where most people seek to convey the brightest possible interpretation of
their own lives to match the same projections they see in others. That isn't
Facebook's fault (insomuch as they actively encourage this), it's just a
natural human reaction ported to a new context and environment.

The reason this hits the HBR crowd particularly hard is because it adds
another, ubiquitous front to the battle of positive image. It used to be, you
only had to be an assertive, bright, shining star when you were _around_
people or talking on the phone. Then you could go home, pour yourself a belt
of Glenlivet, and be miserable for a while to blow off steam. Now you have to
keep it up ALL of the time, on a medium that's everywhere and never stops. It
hits hard, particularly when you're a hard charger whose career depends on
being perceived as relentlessly successful and upbeat.

------
lansing
This piece was spot on, except for one thing-- the suggestion that "quitting
facebook" is unrealistic.

Why?

Maybe the author was trying to avoid being labeled "too extreme". And granted,
there are probably a few people out there who are dependent on it for their
livelihood somehow. For everyone else, "quitting facebook" is a very realistic
alternative. I've done it, so have many of my friends, and life goes on, with
improved well being.

Once you realize you're being used and abused, it's time to move on.

~~~
johnobrien102
Agreed. It's like someone writing a whole article about all the harms of
smoking, and then ending the article with "Now of course I'm not saying quit
smoking, just cut down to a pack a day."

------
stfu
Always entertaining these "Facebook quitting is not possible" discussion that
are following such postings. It is very impressive how much value people put
on remote peer group approval. Sometimes it all seems like a bunch of
highschool kids telling their parents that if they don't get these "cool"
apparel items, they are not going to be popular anymore.

------
masterponomo
The misery can be avoided. I have my girl print off only the most relevant
"wall postings" along with my morning emails. I review these over my after-
breakfast coffee or sometimes (God willing) over a mid-morning BM. Either way,
I only allocate 15-17 minutes per day to "the web" and the rest to managing my
department.

~~~
slig
That's certainly an improvement to "email to a program that wgets the data and
emails back."

~~~
gujk
Printing is an improvement over email?

~~~
masterponomo
Bazinga.

------
blahedo
For several months now I've set myself the rule that I only access FB from
home; I've broken this rule only rarely and it's been remarkably successful at
toning down the constant-checking behaviour--- _even when I'm at home_.
Because I've broken the "24-hour-IV-feed" nature of it, I've found that even
when I have access to it I tend to spend a little while, check my updates,
read a few things off the top of the feed, and then log out. And then I do
other things.

Very helpful, and a nice compromise that stops short of "quitting facebook".

~~~
iamandrus
My rule is to use Facebook three times a day for twenty minutes each. I'm not
addicted to FB, but this helps me stay away from long chats I may get into
with friends. I get shit done with this method and I rarely break this rule.

~~~
masonhensley
What can you possibly accomplish on Facebook for 7 hours a week? I can
understand the needed distraction here and there or the defined communication
with friends but really?*

I'll stop my inflammatory rant because I'm going to assume you're a reasonably
smart cookie because you're here. But really?

*for a 6 month personal experiment I deactivated my FB account and defriended, 2% of current friends per reactivation (17 times each under an hour) and could argue that I still have a top 5% social life.

~~~
iamandrus
A lot of my time is dedicated to messaging (which is handy because a lot of my
friends use FB more than texting), and I also occasionally read through and
comment on wall posts.

------
JofArnold
Exactly this. Since quitting Facebook a month ago after noticing it was
driving me nuts I've been happier, more productive and a lot closer to my
closest friends. YMMV, but for me it has been very positive on all aspects of
my life.

Perhaps this is a sign that Path are onto something - for people like me at
least. (I had been very skeptical before)

~~~
personlurking
I quit for 3 years and went back for a month or two once or twice during that
time. While this was happening, I was no longer invited to events my friends
(sorry, "friends") went to and no longer knew what they were up to in their
lives plus between work and Facebook events, they stopped doing anything
spontaneous (such as meeting me for a coffee when I called). These were people
I knew for between 5 to 10 years in real life.

I have since recently gone back to Facebook and moved cities (countries) so
I'm trying to use it just for events/to my advantage, if such a thing is
possible.

~~~
noarchy
I've been on a few Facebook vacations, and I've always been disappointed to
see how many people use it as their sole means of keeping in touch with
friends (meaning, I don't exist if I'm not on FB with them). You won't get
emails from some of these people, even if you write to them. It's as if they
either aren't checking, or can't be bothered to write more than a few lines
anymore.

------
jerhewet
> and is fast becoming the dominant communication platform of the future.

Facebrick is only a necessity for attention whores, stalkers, pedophiles, and
the insecure. Social networking is a fad, people. Just like pet rocks. Get
over yourselves.

Downvote all you like. Don't care. Those with two brain cells to rub together
will look back in five to ten years and try to remember why they thought
Fartbook -- and the whole damned "social networking" phenominon -- was such a
big deal.

For those that aren't old enough to remember how many times we've been through
this cycle, do the research on MySpace, AOL... hell, the list is endless.
Google "predecessors to Facebook", learn something about what's gone before,
and for Christ's sake, _get a life_.

~~~
noarchy
In five years, we may look back at Facebook as a has-been. But I am confident
that it will enjoy a long life, at least relative to the Web.

I don't care much for Facebook for my own personal enjoyment, but there's
money to be made in Facebook. There are no doubt plenty of HN readers who can
testify to this: huge amounts of money are being spent by companies around the
world every day just to have tabs or full-blown Facebook apps developed for
them. This amounts to a simple window (an iframe, really) within Facebook
itself, but it is a gold mine for some of these companies, and they'll gladly
pay to participate.

Again, this may all dry up within the next few years. But AOL and Myspace
never got close to this kind of user base, so the fall may not be so swift.

------
Karunamon
Pardon the snark, but it sounds like a lot of people are either easily
addicted or have poor time management skills.

Facebook is a social networking site. Others exist (though it is the biggest).
That person who almost got hit because they weren't paying attention to their
surroundings? Is that Facebook's fault, or is the person just easily
distracted?

~~~
VladRussian
>Pardon the snark, but it sounds like a lot of people are either easily
addicted or have poor time management skills.

behold the power of [easy] dopamine.

------
VladRussian
simple recipe for being miserable:

1\. make yourself belief that "the social network [Facebook] has taken over
most aspects of our personal and professional lives, and is fast becoming the
dominant communication platform of the future." and "that \"quitting\"
Facebook altogether is unrealistic"

2\. be miserable

Disclaimer: i've never had a Facebook or any other soc. network account
(beyond Linkedin), so use the recipe at your own risk and YMMV.

------
philwelch
"As Facebook adds new features such as _video chat_ , it is fast becoming a
viable substitute for meetings, relationship building, and even family get-
togethers. But each time a Facebook interaction replaces a richer form of
communication — such as... _a long phone call_...."

Despite many good points, this is the part that reveals the article as
Luddism. How, exactly, is video chat less intimate and rich than a phone call?

------
AdamFernandez
This makes me tempted to start a 'My life is Awesome' movement on Facebook
where everyone just keeps posting ever more ridiculous great achievements and
over the top status updates.

~~~
trafficlight
Make it a "My Life is Awesome since I Quit Facebook" movement. Now we're over
the top.

------
rehack
Beginning of 2011, my new year resolution was "less facebook". I am glad that
I have kept it. The way I did was, stopped posting stuff over there. As I
figured I am more keen on what people are liking/commenting on what I post.

I know it is not fair entirely on my friends. As I am not entirely off it -
and I consume but don't produce any thing over there. But I had to do
something drastic as my work is more important, and I could not have waited
for good social usage patterns to evolve. Mostly, I respond as a private
message, if I see something which I feel compelled to comment on. Even if some
friend posts on my wall, or on some occasions inquire about my silence, I try
to do the same thing.

I am wondering if in Jan 2012, I should go back there or not...

PS: I do _waste_ time on HN too. But I honestly feel, I gain something out of
it as well. The quality of discussion is very high. And the kind of stuff
posted is to my taste. I also use Google+ to discuss something with friends.
The less number of people there actually helps, in a different way.

------
jscore
I got a friend on FB that works in Brussels but literally every weekend he's
off to some exotic destination. So everyday I either see a checkin from god
knows where, or if he's not there yet, there's always a status "Next weekend,
I will be in <exotic destination>"

I wonder if he'd be still doing this if there was no Facebook.

The only reason I keep Facebook is because it's easy to contact people when I
need to get a hold of someone that I met five years ago while traveling or
something.

But even so, I'm beginning to question the logic behind having a million
acquaintances "just in case"

My close friends are on Skype anyway, so FB seems to have less meaning with
each passing day.

~~~
nileshtrivedi
FB, just like Twitter or blogs, is a tool for social broadcasting. It can be
abused like anything else.

------
jeromeparadis
I don't buy the first point. Maybe my friends don't share everything sad, but
some do share hardships and from experience, Facebook friends can sometimes
become and additional support group. For example, when our baby was having
cardiac surgery, my wife and I decided to share some of our experience and the
positive is that you can keep your friends informed and get a lot of moral
support when you most need it. It was awesome. Some of that support translated
in real life too. It doesn't replace family or close friends that are present
in your real life during these times, but it can be a valuable addition.

Same thing for the third point. Wether with Twitter or Facebook, we've had
many real life impromptu meet ups we would never had before these tools
because of status updates.

Social networks are tools. What matters is how you and your friends are using
these. Of course, some friends only use these for self promotion or self
gratification but you tend to notice and behaviors and filter out those
updates that never lead to mean something.

On the other hand, if your life is miserable in the first place, I can see
cases where Facebook could make your life more miserable. Again, it all
depends on how your use it, your attitude and what you make of it.

------
AznHisoka
The same can also be same of this forum, and Techcrunch when we hear news
about other startups getting acquired "easily".

It's easy to get depressed when you hear a startup like Hunch(seriously, eBay
was a knight on a white horse, they got off easy) getting acquired for $80
million when you've worked your ass off on an idea or 2 for the last 5 years
with little to show for it.

Sometimes it's better to just ignore positive news. It's hard to not get
jealous.

------
motters
It seems to me that what may be happening with sites such as Facebook is
behavioral sink. That is, the frequency/intensity of interactions, especially
facilitated by involuntary sharing, is beyond what the biological system can
handle and the result may be maladaptive behaviors.

From Wikipedia:

"When forced interactions exceed some threshold, social norms break down. Thus
social density is considered more critical than geometric spatial density."

------
impendia
Is comparing ourselves to others so bad?

For me, it called attention to the fact that others were leading more
interesting and dynamic lives than me. Yes, it made me more stressed. But it
also brought me out of my comfort zone, and it led me to honestly ask why I
wasn't getting more of what I wanted in life -- and to do something about it.

Facebook has my gratitude.

~~~
lansing
That's great that Facebook "opened your eyes" in a seemingly healthy way.
Seriously.

The world was full of ways to compare ourselves with others before social
media came around. It isn't going away. Facebook is just the latest iteration,
and also happens to be the most surface-level, un-holistic, and competitive
channel yet conceived for this kind of behavior.

Once people get competitive about "happiness" and "self esteem", there's a way
that they lose sight of the original "goal" in the attempt to outdo each
other.

We should all explore the different available paths in life and strive to gain
from others' perspective and experience, but the Facebook news feed is not a
particularly good way to do it.

~~~
impendia
+1, but I strongly disagree with you. I learn that: my friends have dragged
themselves out of bed to enjoy some new and fascinating experience; after a
long and severe effort, they have succeeded at their dissertation/weight
loss/exercise program; that after a lot of duds on OKCupid, they have met
somebody amazing; etc. There's plenty of surface-level stuff on FB too, but
whenever FB has made me "miserable" it has always been over something
important and meaningful.

A lot of things strike me as vastly more surface-level and un-holistic: what
kind of car you drive, how big your house is, how rich your neighbors are, how
immaculate your lawn is, etc.

~~~
AznHisoka
so whenever your friends succeed in something meaningful, you always feel
miserable? You never ever feel good for them? (don't be afraid to say yes,
because I'm like that.. wondering if I'm alone..)

~~~
impendia
No, far from always, and not miserable exactly. By "miserable", I mean that I
ask myself, "Bob drove to Yosemite National Park and hiked Half Dome this
weekend, while I hung around my apartment and surfed the net and watched TV.
Why didn't I do something like Bob?"

~~~
gujk
Because you are content in your surroundings and more energy efficient.

------
cafard
"First, it's creating a den of comparison. Since our Facebook profiles are
self-curated, users have a strong bias toward sharing positive milestones and
avoid mentioning the more humdrum, negative parts of their lives."

It sounds a bit like cocktail parties, neighborhood open houses, and so on.

------
psychotik
I bet sometime soon Facebook's News Feed will be run through an "emotional
state/mood" filter to customize the visible feed items that show up to be
appropriate to what it infers is appropriate for your current mood/mental
state. Unfortunately, for some people the algorithmic pendulum will swing too
far to the 'depressed' state and cause unforeseen misery. The FCC will then
collaborate with the Dept. of Health And Human Services to create new
compliance guidelines. Yay, future!

------
jsz0
Isn't this is just a basic feature of human nature? I'm pretty sure we once
had cavemen sitting around the fire grunting/bragging about their awesome
hunting skills while other cavemen felt jealous, anxious, or depressed about
their own skills. Fire is clearly making us miserable.

~~~
AznHisoka
Cavemen had to work together for common goal (survival) hence people usually
root for each other. In modern world, people compete and try to one-up each
other. No common goals. Big difference.

~~~
mbesto
Disagree.

> _Cavemen had to work together for common goal (survival) hence people
> usually root for each other._

How is that any different today? People manifest survival in a totally
different way today, and the human being either choses to use other people to
survive (bartering) or survive on our own (live off the land).

~~~
AznHisoka
Survival is already an non-issue for most people in modern society and non-3rd
world countries. Most friendships and relationships today are built on things
that are so fragile, vulnerable, and superficial.. it's not even close.

If survival was an issue (fighting aliens for instance), we'd all be united in
a way that would be unrecognizable today.

------
aai
Unsubscribing nearly 90% of my "friends" from appearing in my news feed has
helped me manage my fb time better.

If I could figure out how to unfriend mass numbers easily, I'd do that
instead.

~~~
sneak
One-step bulk unfriend:
[http://www.facebook.com/help/contact.php?show_form=delete_ac...](http://www.facebook.com/help/contact.php?show_form=delete_account)

------
ed2417
On the right of the page :"STAY CONNECTED TO HBR" with Facebook.

