Facebook\u00a0has defended itself against claims that using the site can damage wellbeing and mental health.<\/p>\n
In a blogpost, it said while there was evidence it could negatively affect mood, the way it affected people was determined by how they used it.<\/p>\n
Facebook’s downsides could be combated by making more use of the site and interacting positively, it said.<\/p>\n
A social media expert said the way\u00a0Facebook\u00a0was built made it hard to use it in those better ways.<\/p>\n
Active use<\/strong><\/p>\n Questions about the impact of\u00a0Facebook\u00a0came into focus last week, following comments from Sean Parker,\u00a0Facebook’s first president, and\u00a0Chamath Palihapitiya, a former executive at the company.<\/p>\n Mr Parker said the site set up “feedback loops” that helped to ensure people kept coming back.<\/p>\n Mr Palihapitiya said the social network was “ripping society apart” and\u00a0exploited human psychology\u00a0to maintain its hold on its users.<\/p>\n In response,\u00a0Facebook\u00a0said it had changed a lot in the six years since Mr Palihapitiya left and was no longer interested in just expanding its user base.<\/p>\n In the more recent blog,\u00a0Facebook’s director of research, David Ginsberg, said there was a continuing internal debate at the company about whether time spent on social media was good for people.<\/p>\n Mr Ginsberg said there had been “compelling research” that linked a rise in depression among teenagers to rising consumption of social media and that looked at the way technology had changed relationships.<\/p>\n But set against these disadvantages were benefits that showed social-media use could improve peoples’ moods and help maintain the social ties that directly influenced wellbeing and resilience.<\/p>\n What made the difference, he said, was how people used\u00a0Facebook.<\/p>\n “Just like in person, interacting with people you care about can be beneficial, while simply watching others from the sidelines may make you feel worse,” wrote Mr Ginsberg.<\/p>\n