Facebook v Twitter

Introduction

facebook and twitter both suck. In a group chat I got into a lengthy debate over which social media is more evil, twitter or facebook. At the time I argued, facebook sucks more than twitter.

The debate started because my friend shared a podcast I wasn't interested in listening regarding facebook. Instead of ignoring his recommendation like the rest of humanity would, I said, "If you have data, I'd like to see it. Otherwise I'm not interested."

The argument took many side streets and detours. In the end, I'm not sure anyone was persuaded to modify their opinion. After further investigation, I may have. See the decision for my current judgement.

Affirmative position

My friend argued and supported the claim that facebook is more evil than twitter.

Here is a quote from an Atlantic article that was references several time in our debate:

"Facebook has conducted social-contagion experiments on its users without telling them. Facebook has acted as a force for digital colonialism, attempting to become the de facto (and only) experience of the internet for people all over the world. Facebook has bragged about its ability to influence the outcome of elections. Unlawful militant groups use Facebook to organize. Government officials use Facebook to mislead their own citizens, and to tamper with elections. Military officials have exploited Facebook’s complacency to carry out genocide. Facebook inadvertently auto-generated jaunty recruitment videos for the Islamic State featuring anti-Semitic messages and burning American flags."

I have objections to some of this evidence, but I'll acknowledge facebook has a lot more negative media and reports. This is suggestive evidence. I asked my friend what it would take to change my friend's mind, and he said damning evidence of twitter. I found a few things, but nothing worth sharing or comparable to facebook.

My friend's argument and stance are both reasonable. If there was an evil metrics we could measure, I would agree those discrepancies in reports alone would make facebook a heavy favorite in the evil match up.

My Biases: The utility

I have tried and failed to have intellectual conversations and debates on twitter. The character limitations and culture of instant communications is terrible for thoughtful discourse.

When I produced and hosted a podcast, I used twitter a lot trying network. And I 'd say that was almost worthless. Certainly a waste of my time. In hindsight, I should have bought ads, and used that twitter time to produced a better product.

Anecdotally, I haven't benefited from twitter.

On the other hand, facebook is useful at times. I have bought and sold items on markertpalce. I have had intellectually stimulating conversations, both with strangers and friends. Still, there are other sites a lot better than facebook of intelligent discussions.

Of course, I have witnessed a lot of stupidity, discrimination from both facebook and twitter. and both are huge echo chambers.

Anecdotally, facebook has a lot more to offer me.

My biases: fake news and elections

There is no evidence that fake news on facebook effects elections, and some evidence that it doesn't. By fake news, I mean intentionally manipulating people with false information. Changing opinions with accurate/honest information is great.

The main idea is that most people who consume fake news, are already very polarized politically, therefore the influences from facebook's newsfeed, and fake news isn't changing people's vote at the ballots.

If I had access to a better database I might find more evidence for or against facebook. But most of the evidence I could access on google scholar supports my previous bias. "People are much more likely to believe stories that favor their preferred candidate, especially if they have ideologically segregated social media networks." An Italian study concluded: "Our findings support the view that exposure to fake news (i) favours populist parties, but also that (ii) it is positively correlated with prior support for populist parties, suggesting a self-selection mechanism." We could link studies on political advertising too; I should look into those later.

(Fun finding: there is a third-person perception phenomena that "individuals believed that fake news would have greater effects on out-group members than themselves or in-group members.")

There is softer evidence that, "Facebook, Twitter, and Google go beyond promoting their services and facilitating digital advertising buys, actively shaping campaign communication through their close collaboration with political staffers. We show how representatives at these firms serve as quasi-digital consultants to campaigns, shaping digital strategy, content, and execution. Given this, we argue that political communication scholars need to consider social media firms as more active agents in political processes than previously appreciated in the literature." This isn't directly related to fake news, but it shows how tech companies weld power.

It is clear that companies have agendas, lobby, donate to parties and candidates, and have influence. Maybe future data will reveal more accurate outcomes on social media platforms and manipulating elections.

Measuring outcomes

I don't think about companies being evil. I do a cost benefit analysis, informally, and decide to use a service or buy a product. I have both a facebook and twitter account. I hardy use either, but at times they provide more benefit than cost to me, so I use them.

Does facebook take advantage of people not reading terms of agreement? Maybe, but that is part of the cost of a "free account." Nothing is free. To change my bias experience, I need to know outcomes.

For those who don't know the price of a social media account, it is your data and receiving advertisements. The more time people spend on facebook the more data facebook gathers and the more ads facebook sells. Of course facebook wants people to spend more time on facebook. That is how they run their business.

I want actual outcomes of users of both social medias. Expanding and seeking profits isn't a value criteria for me. facebook isn't a necessity, people can choose to use or not use the service.

Is twitter or facebook more likely to produce a negative effect in the person's life? Is a young person more likely to join a terrorists group, become a cult, attempt suicide, get bullied, or fall into depression on facebook or twitter? This is the some of the data I'd want to know to make a decision about which is more evil, or which is a worse platform for people's well being. 

My Findings

facebook is a lot more like a dictatorship than twitter, click here for other fun facts about the two social media services. Zuckerburg has 53% voting power over the company while Dorsey has 2.34% of the company (both based off their shares in the company).

A 2014 study found that, teens who were bullied online were bullied more on facebook (39%) than twitter (22%) according to a 2014 study (Cox. (2014) "Cox 2014 Internet Safety Survey." The Futures Company). A 2017 UK report on bully found that facebook is a lot worse than twitter, see graph below.

 

I couldn't find any hard data on suicides or terrorism between facebook and twitter. There is a book I want to read about social media and the increase in mental health, depression, and suicide, so maybe I'll find more studies or data to add. Pending future studies or existing studies, a cumulative case against facebook is made..

The decision

I haven't discussed or researched positives. So there is a chance that could swing the debate. My biases lead me to a similar feeling as my utility, but without data that inclination is worthless. The bullying data is enough to override my personal experiences.

Facebook probably sucks more than twitter.