Why Some Researchers Think I’m Wrong About Social Media and Mental Illness

Re:Why Some Researchers Think I’m Wrong About Social Media a... by azangru on Wednesday April 19, 2023 @09:06AM (#35627656)

> Everyone's in a gang and god help you if you aren't everyone will have a go at you.

Don't you have to be sufficiently active or prominent on the social media to be attacked?

(Yes, I remember the example of some hapless lady who tweeted "hope I won't get aids" before departing to Africa. I don't know how active she had been on twitter, or how typical the subsequent annihilation of her is.)

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Why Some Researchers Think I’m Wrong About Social Media a... by throwaway2847 on Wednesday April 19, 2023 @09:09AM (#35627696)

Definitely not, if you reply to a sufficiently famous person in a way they dislike there's always a risk they'll (in)directly turn their followers against you.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Why Some Researchers Think I’m Wrong About Social Media a... by taeric on Wednesday April 19, 2023 @10:35AM (#35628696)

I mean... this would happen in any place where you get to sound off against someone famous. Right?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Why Some Researchers Think I’m Wrong About Social Media a... by oh_sigh on Wednesday April 19, 2023 @10:39AM (#35628724)

Nope - look at the central park bird watcher/dog incident or the SA aids lady as you mention - both of them I guess had a social media presence, but it was along the lines of 50 followers, probably just the people they were friends with in real life.

But also being in a gang doesn't even protect you. Lots of intragang cancellations, if the gang seems you to hold the wrong values for the gang. Eg Lena dunham

[ Parent | on HN ]