Image source: Good Day Goldfish
Recently, Facebook had to apologize to its users for its "Year in Review" product, which reminded many users of tragic, sad, or otherwise upsetting events in the past year that would be better left forgotten (or at least not blasted in a newsfeed couched in exclamation points). One journalist commented on the fact that Facebook's default is positivity: Facebook cultivates and encourages positive events only. For example, comments with the word "congratulations" in them get pushed to the top of newsfeeds based on Facebook's algorithm, and you can only "Like" posts, you can't "Dislike" them or easily offer condolences or commiseration. This led me to think about the potential harm Facebook causes by forcing a default of positivity on its users. We all know that our lives are not filled with purely joyful events and that these are not the only types of milestones we want to share either. Often, people seek out support and empathy for negative events and need this support more than they do for positive events (of course, this can be taken too far as well). And because of the ecosystem Facebook has created, people often feel that they have to cover their posts in a thick lacquer of happiness and success, which is not only partially or completely false, but also makes people feel ashamed of anything less than perfectly positive (emphasis on the perfect part).
Years of research have shown that negative emotions are productive and make us better people. Denying the existence of negative emotions can also hinder our ability to feel and appreciate positive emotions (for an incredibly interesting and engaging discussion of this, see here). If we think about Facebook in this larger context, it would suggest that the social media site is doing more harm than good by trying to make us focus on only the positive aspects of our life and denying or hiding the less than perfect parts. In reality, this is probably driving a wedge between people, rather than bringing them together, which is, ostensibly, the goal of the website. Evidence to suggest this comes from a recent study on the positive emotional benefits of listening to sad music, which found that sad music can provide consolation and help people regulate their negative emotions. It's possible that more realistic Facebook posts could do the same, offering benefits to both the people reading the post, and the poster him/herself. Facebook users have been asking for a "Dislike" button for years, but the site has never complied. So, why, if negative emotions are good for connection, emotion regulation, and overall well-being, would Facebook distance itself from any form of negativity or negative emotional sharing? It obviously believes that negativity would do more harm than good -- this could be both in a strictly monetary sense (ad revenues) or in terms of the overall distrust it has in its users' ability to engage in "disliking" in a sensible and respectful way. I do think that a lot of good could come from Facebook embracing a more "complete" emotional profile of its users, or at least not forcing them to be positive even if it won't provide an explicit outlet for them to be negative.
Years of research have shown that negative emotions are productive and make us better people. Denying the existence of negative emotions can also hinder our ability to feel and appreciate positive emotions (for an incredibly interesting and engaging discussion of this, see here). If we think about Facebook in this larger context, it would suggest that the social media site is doing more harm than good by trying to make us focus on only the positive aspects of our life and denying or hiding the less than perfect parts. In reality, this is probably driving a wedge between people, rather than bringing them together, which is, ostensibly, the goal of the website. Evidence to suggest this comes from a recent study on the positive emotional benefits of listening to sad music, which found that sad music can provide consolation and help people regulate their negative emotions. It's possible that more realistic Facebook posts could do the same, offering benefits to both the people reading the post, and the poster him/herself. Facebook users have been asking for a "Dislike" button for years, but the site has never complied. So, why, if negative emotions are good for connection, emotion regulation, and overall well-being, would Facebook distance itself from any form of negativity or negative emotional sharing? It obviously believes that negativity would do more harm than good -- this could be both in a strictly monetary sense (ad revenues) or in terms of the overall distrust it has in its users' ability to engage in "disliking" in a sensible and respectful way. I do think that a lot of good could come from Facebook embracing a more "complete" emotional profile of its users, or at least not forcing them to be positive even if it won't provide an explicit outlet for them to be negative.
RSS Feed
