Instagram doesn’t fit. And after the very heavy investigation by the Wall Street Journal – also resumed by our newspaper – about the research (kept hidden by the social network) that reveals how the platform is harmful for teenagers, a long note arrives to clarify some aspects. According to the social media owned by Mark Zuckerberg, who published the post titled “What our research on the well-being of adolescents and on Instagram really says”, “it is not correct that this research shows that Instagram is” toxic “for teenage girls. “.
The study, according to reports from Menlo Park, “has actually shown that many teens believe that using Instagram helps them when they are struggling with difficult times and problems that teens have always faced.” The note explains that, in fact, “in 11 of the 12 areas of the slide referred to in the Journal”, including the more serious ones such as loneliness, anxiety, sadness and eating problems, “more adolescent girls who said they having struggled with that kind of problem they also said that Instagram made those difficult moments better ».
Loading…
According to the reconstruction of Instagram, in its internal research previewed by the Wall Street Journal, “body image was the only area where teenage girls who reported struggling with that kind of problem claimed that Instagram worsened their what’s this. But even here, most of the teenage girls who have had problems with their body image still reported that Instagram has improved this aspect, or has not had any impact ».
The defense of Instagram also continues on the numbers, with the Californian company going into the details of the research: «In addition to contextualizing the specific results – it is written – it is also essential to clarify the nature of this research. This research, based in part on contributions from just 40 teens, was designed to inform insiders about teens’ more negative perceptions of Instagram. It didn’t measure the causal relationships between Instagram and real-world problems. These documents were also created and used by people who understood the limitations of research, which is why they occasionally used shorthand language, particularly in titles. The study of these great social problems and what affects them is complex. The Journal article implied that we were hiding this research and that the results are surprising, but it just isn’t. ‘
Then the lunge: “Our internal research is part of our effort to minimize the evil on our platforms and maximize the good. We invest in this research to proactively identify where we can improve, which is why the worst possible results are highlighted in the internal slides ».