You know it’s not good when one of the most prestigious pediatric journals, Pediatrics, can’t differentiate between correlation and causation.
And yet this is exactly what the authors of a “clinical report” did in reporting on the impact of social media on children and teens. Especially in their discussion of “Facebook depression,” a term that the authors simply made up to describe the phenomenon observed when depressed people use social media.
Shoddy research? You bet. That’s why Pediatrics calls it a “clinical report” — because it’s at the level of a bad blog post written by people with a clear agenda. In this case, the report was written by Gwenn Schurgin O’Keeffe, Kathleen Clarke-Pearson and the American Academy of Pediatrics Council on Communications and Media (2011).
What makes this bad a report? Let’s just look at the issue of “Facebook depression,” their made-up term for a phenomenon that doesn’t exist.
The authors of the Pediatrics report use six citations to support their claim that social media sites like Facebook actually cause depression in children and teens. Four of the six citations are third-party news reports on research in this area. In other words, the authors couldn’t even bother with reading the actual research to see if the research actually said what the news outlet reported it said.
I expect to see this sort of lack of quality and laziness on blogs. Hey, a lot of time we’re busy and we just want to make a point — that I can understand.
When you go to the trouble not only of writing a report but also publishing it in a peer-reviewed journal, you’d think you’d go to the trouble of reading the research — not other people’s reporting on research.
Here’s what the researchers in Pediatrics had to say about “Facebook depression:”
Researchers have proposed a new phenomenon called “Facebook depression,” defined as depression that develops when preteens and teens spend a great deal of time on social media sites, such as Facebook, and then begin to exhibit classic symptoms of depression.
Acceptance by and contact with peers is an important element of adolescent life. The intensity of the online world is thought to be a factor that may trigger depression in some adolescents. As with offline depression, preadolescents and adolescents who suffer from Facebook depression are at risk for social isolation and sometimes turn to risky Internet sites and blogs for “help” that may promote substance abuse, unsafe sexual practices, or aggressive or self-destructive behaviors.
Time and time again researchers are finding much more nuanced relationships between social networking sites and depression. In the Selfhout et al. (2009) study they cite, for instance, the researchers only found the correlation between the two factors in people with low quality friendships. Teens with what the researchers characterized as high quality friendships showed no increase in depression with increased social networking time.
The Pediatrics authors also do what a lot of researchers do when promoting a specific bias or point of view — they simply ignore research that disagrees with their bias. Worse, they cite the supposed depression-social networking link as though it were a forgone conclusion — that researchers are all in agreement that this actually exists, and exists in a causative manner.
There are a multitude of studies that disagree with their point of view, however. One longitudinal study (Kraut et al., 1998) found that, over a period of 8 — 12 months, both loneliness and depression increased with time spent online among adolescent and adult first-time Internet users. In a one-year follow-up study (Kraut et al., 2002), however, the observed negative effects of Internet use had disappeared. In other words, this may not be a robust relationship (if it even exists) and may simply be something related to greater familiarity with the Internet.
Other research has shown that college students’ — who are often older teens — Internet use was directly and indirectly related to less depression (Morgan & Cotten, 2003; LaRose, Eastin, & Gregg, 2001).
Furthermore, studies have revealed that Internet use can lead to online relationship formation, and thereby to more social support ([Nie and Erbring, 2000], [Wellman et al., 2001] and [Wolak et al., 2003]) — which may subsequently lead to less internalizing problems.
In another study cited by the Pediatrics authors, simply reading the news report should’ve raised a red flag for them. Because the news report on the study quoted the study’s author who specifically noted her study could not determine causation:
According to Morrison, pornography, online gaming and social networking site users had a higher incidence of moderate to severe depression than other users. “Our research indicates that excessive Internet use is associated with depression, but what we don’t know is which comes first – are depressed people drawn to the Internet or does the Internet cause depression? What is clear is that for a small subset of people, excessive use of the Internet could be a warning signal for depressive tendencies,” she added.
The other citations in the Pediatrics report are equally problematic (and one citation has nothing to do with social networking and depression [Davila, 2009]). None mention the phrase “Facebook depression” (as far as I could determine), and none could demonstrate a causative relationship between use of Facebook making a teenager or child feel more depressed. Zero.
I’m certain depressed people use Facebook, Twitter and other social networking websites. I’m certain people who are already feeling down or depressed might go online to talk to their friends, and try and be cheered up. This in no way suggests that by using more and more of Facebook, a person is going to get more depressed. That’s just a silly conclusion to draw from the data to date, and we’ve previously discussed how use of the Internet has not been shown to cause depression, only that there’s an association between the two.
If this is the level of “research” done to come to these conclusions about “Facebook depression,” the entire report is suspect and should be questioned. This is not an objective clinical report; this is a piece of propaganda spouting a particular agenda and bias.
The problem now is that news outlets everywhere are picking up on “Facebook depression” and suggesting not only that it exists, but that researchers have found the online world somehow “triggers” depression in teens. Pediatrics and the American Academy of Pediatrics should be ashamed of this shoddy clinical report, and retract the entire section about “Facebook depression.”
References
Davila, Joanne; Stroud, Catherine B.; Starr, Lisa R.; Miller, Melissa Ramsay; Yoneda, Athena; Hershenberg, Rachel. (2009). Romantic and sexual activities, parent — adolescent stress, and depressive symptoms among early adolescent girls. Journal of Adolescence, 32(4), 909-924.
Kraut, R., S. Kiesler, B. Boneva, J.N. Cummings, V. Helgeson and A.M. Crawford. (2002). Internet paradox revisited. Journal of Social Issues, 58, 49 — 74.
Kraut, R., M. Patterson, V. Lundmark, S. Kiesler, T. Mukophadhyay and W. Scherlis. (1998). Internet paradox: a social technology that reduces social involvement and psychological well-being? American Psychologist, 53, 1017 — 1031.
LaRose, R., Eastin, M.S. and Gregg, J. (2001). Reformulating the Internet paradox: social cognitive explanations of Internet use and depression. Journal of Online Behavior, 1, 1 — 19.
Maarten H.W. Selfhout Susan J.T. Branje1, M. Delsing Tom F.M. ter Bogt and Wim H.J. Meeus. (2009). Different types of Internet use, depression, and social anxiety: The role of perceived friendship quality. Journal of Adolescence,
32(4), 819-833.
Morgan, C. & Cotten, S.R. (2003). The relationship between Internet activities and depressive symptoms in a sample of college freshmen. CyberPsychology and Behavior, 6, 133 — 142.
Nie, NH and Erbring,L. (2000). Internet and society: A preliminary report, Stanford Inst. of Quant. Study Soc., Stanford, CA.
O’Keeffe et al. (2011). Clinical Report: The Impact of Social Media on Children, Adolescents, and Families (PDF). Pediatrics. DOI: 10.1542/peds.2011-0054
Wellman, B., A. Quan-Haase, J. Witte and K. Hampton. (2001). Does the Internet increase, decrease, or supplement social capital? Social networks, participation, and community commitment. American Behavioral Scientist, 45, 436 — 455.
Wolak, J., K.J. Mitchell and D. Finkelhor. (2003). Escaping or connecting? Characteristics of youth who form close online relationships. Journal of Adolescence, 26, 105 — 119.
48 comments
I would also ironically note that this blog entry has more references in it than the Pediatrics clinical report on the issue of “Facebook depression” and none of which are third-party news reports on actual research.
Wow. What happened to the peer review process here?
i think that teens/students place more emphasis on facebook than school. being a student myself i know how hard it can be to stop browsing useless pictures of last nights party and start writing a paper on something your not interested in. putting the emphasis on social networking rather than school will generally cause lower grades which could lead to some depression like symptoms, no?
I am disinclined to buy into the theory that “facebook depression” exists. As an internet tool, I actually find that it is a great way for young people to share their personal thoughts and photo’s with their friends. Not that I mean to spy or eavesdrop, but I do not notice any pronounced angst in the teens who are cited as my facebook pals (courtesy of my children) on the site.
The point of issue here is more to do with parents attempting to encourage an even BALANCE in their children’s lives. If a parent is allowing the computer to become a babysitting service, and they are not ensuring that their kids are involved in extracurricular activities, then as with anybody, a teen may become depressed by becoming a shut-in.
So let’s not blame modern technology in every case for depression; the buck stops with Mom and Dad to encourage healthy lifestyles in their children. And it is up to them to ensure that their children are not communicating with unsavory characters on the internet.
Thanks for pointing out the correlation/causation confusion. My favorite example of how this can be taken to extremes is the tongue-in-cheek article, “The Dangers of Bread” (Google it.)
Pauline; you are correct! It’s jaw-dropping what far-fetched theories people buy into, and treat them as verbatim without applying any level of skepticism to them; and without considering what factors were used when formulating an idea. The bread theory…wow.
No, no, take heed, everyone. Not only do I suffer from Facebook Depression myself, but I also have Twitter Pox and Huffington’s Syndrome. All these newfangled ailments are hitting me just when I’m certain to spend the next several months struggling with baseball fever, a seasonal disorder I’ve had since birth. I have only one recommendation: choose LinkedIn, it’s non-habit-forming.
The idea that there is no correlation between a kid spending time on a simulacra of intimacy like Facebook instead of actual human contact is idiotic. Social media is not a substitute for real human interaction, no matter how much press a company gets. Combine that with a flat affect, dysfunctional founder and its powerful recipe for social alienation.
Thank you for shedding light on this BS. I live with clinical depression and reading the mentioned article of this supposed “Facebook Depression” upset me. I felt it was making light of a serious disease in context with a tool that is nothing more than a modern distraction.
As a marketing professional who works with tools like Facebook , Twitter, blogs, etc. The idea that any of these networks is the root of depression is ridiculous. That would be like me saying I have Garden Rake Bi-polar syndrome.
Certainly things like Facebook could contribute to one’s mental stability if said person was currently dealing with depression or another related mental illness. However, this is no different than how TV, radio, phones, text messaging, etc. can contribute to one’s mood. Sensationalism has no place with this illness.
I am the lead author on the citation that John accurately points out “has nothing to do with social networking and depression [Davila, 2009]”. I invite readers to visit my webpage:
http://www.psychology.sunysb.edu/jdavila-/webpage/
where I have posted some information and links to interviews and podcasts on the matter. Thank you.
CNET is reporting that O’Keeffe will at some point issue a response to this editorial.
We can’t wait to read the justifications and rationalizations for: (1) using third-party media reports about research as references, rather than the actual research itself; (2) using citations that don’t support the statements made in the report itself (thanks for the link, Joanne!); (3) ignoring or purposely confusing the difference between data that show a causal relationship (which we take from their use of the word “trigger”) and a correlational relationship; (4) and making up a new term (“Facebook depression”) to describe what they found by perusing mainstream media reports and a study or two.
I actually agree that it can cause depression.
Facebook as a means of cyberbullying is even worse than depression. Children often use the social network to damage the reputation of their classmates and I heard this can have detrimental consequences on the natural development of the victims.
Dr. Grohol:
I have to take issue with your post about our clinical report. All you have done is add to the media frenzy about this issue.
A Clinical Report is a summary of a clinical situation that augments the clinical practice of pediatrics. It is not a study nor is it intended to be interpreted as such. The only agenda we had in proposing and then writing this report was to assist our colleagues practicing pediatrics understand the entire landscape of social media today, the positives and the negatives.
As with all AAP reports, for the report to be published, it was subjected to a rigorous review process that included internal and external review groups. These groups were not only top pediatric and psychiatric groups in the country but top social media groups and legal groups. We took great care to be sure our facts were accurate and everyone was on board with the information we were presenting for our colleagues on all sections of the report, including the Facebook Depression section.
The Social Media Clinical Report was carefully and thoughtfully organized in the following way after the introduction and abstract:
Benefits
Risks
Privacy Concerns and the Digital Footprint
Influences of Advertisements on Buying
On Too Young: mixed messages and the law
The Role of the Pediatrician
References
If you took the time to read the full report, you’d notice of the 5 page report, Facebook Depression is one small paragraph of the Risks section that takes up all 1/6 of a page. So, the clinical report is by no means about Facebook Depression nor do we make that claim ever.
Let me go further and clarify a few of your other concerns.
I was most certainly not the first to use the term “Facebook Depression†and I won’t be the last. I first noticed the term in widespread use in the mainstream press around 2009 after Dr. Davila’s Stonybrook study came out, which you cite below. She not only gave compelling interviews about this topic when her study came out but has done so as recently as two weeks ago. You can review her interviews yourself on the following links: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/facebook/4405741/Excessive-chatting-on-Facebook-can-lead-to-depression-in-teenage-girls.html and http://miami.cbslocal.com/2011/03/07/study-social-networking-may-leave-teens-depressed/ .
Interestingly, one speculation that has been growing is that excessive internet use may be a set up for this phenomenon of “Facebook Depressionâ€. Since we submitted our CR for approval, more research is coming out supporting that hypothesis. For example, researchers at the University of Leeds have noticed this by following hyper internet users (http://content.karger.com/ProdukteDB/produkte.asp?Aktion=ShowAbstract&ArtikelNr=277001&Ausgabe=253793&ProduktNr=224276).
A nice summary of this study is on Psychiatry Today by Dr. Jared DeFife (http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-shrink-tank/201002/depression-in-the-digital-world).
Finally, you will be interested to read AAP Psychiatrist Mike Brody’s comments posted yesterday about “Facebook Depressionâ€: http://www.myhealthnewsdaily.com/facebook-depression-rare-but-serious-side-effect-of-social-networking–1318/
Do we know about causality yet? No. But we didn’t claim to. All we claimed to note was the existence of a risk that pediatricians needed to note to keep kids healthy – one risk among many others.
In the end, this is not a clinical report for pediatricians about Facebook Depression, Depression or even psychological issues in kids and teens. This is a clinical report about “The Impact of Social Media†on our kids today. For us to do justice to that topic we have a responsibility to be thorough and review the entire landscape, the pluses and minuses. That’s the only way for our colleagues to help parents keep their kids healthy and for our colleagues to help parents be the best parents in this evolving digital world.
Why engage in pack journalism when you could actually do a thoughtful analysis and report?
For this work in question, I’m proud of the work we’ve created and stand by it, frenzy and all.
Gwenn O’Keeffe, MD
Lead Author
AAP Clinical Report The Impact of Social Media on Children, Adolescents, and Families
Um, okay, so its a made up name, but, I mean, isn’t that pretty much true of every single diagnosis in the DSM-IV-TR, of which there is very little if any clear knowledge of etiology and causation?
Rumor has it that the only effective treatment for Facebook depression is a slew of antipsychotics.
Dr. O’Keeffe, thank you for your detailed and thoughtful response.
Just so everyone here is clear, Dr. O’Keeffe says:
Please correct me if I’m reading this wrong, but it appears this means that using random mainstream media reports of research is a part of this “rigorous review.” I don’t understand how so many prestigious individuals can attach their names to a report that reports — second-hand — on actual medical and psychological research. Even when I write a simple blog entry here, I regularly go to the primary research to verify the conclusions stated in a mainstream media news story. How could my standards be higher than the AAP’s?
I indeed did read the entire report, but focused on the area I’m most familiar with, your so-called “Facebook depression” — a term you and your co-authors invented specifically for this report.
Any professional who buys into media reports of over-generalization, and confusing causation with correlation and then uses that as a defense for simply “reporting” on trends is sort of missing the point. How are you helping to educate other professionals when you are simply presenting the same mis-representations appearing in the mainstream media to begin with?
I did ask where in the research the term “Facebook depression” was ever used, since, according to the report you co-authored, you specifically stated:
You didn’t say the “mainstream media” — you said researchers. I asked where in the research researchers actually said this? We still have no answer to this question, which supports my claim that you and your co-authors simply invented this term to help better market the AAP report.
Dr. Davila has responded here and elsewhere, noting that her research you originally cited wasn’t specifically about Facebook or any social networking website. In actually reading her research (which I assume you’ve also done), you’ll see that to be true (notwithstanding how the media chooses what bits of an interview to publish in an article to support their own particular bias or slant).
Pulling in the controversial “Internet addiction” disorder (your Morrison & Gore citation above) to help prove your point really does just the opposite, since the research in this area is also just sloppy and methodologically poor. And resorting to anecdotal evidence from another AAP professional who was directly involved in creating this report? Sorry, I look to scientific research for evidence — not other AAP professionals who have a vested interest and inherent bias to support the work that has their name on it.
Finally, you state, “Do we know about causality yet? No. But we didn’t claim to.”
Actually, you did. In context of the “Facebook depression” section, you and your co-authors stated — as a forgone conclusion:
Trigger, as you know, is to cause to function or act. Words should mean something consistent, don’t you agree? If you didn’t mean that Facebook may trigger — or cause to happen — depression, why (a) state it and (b) call the section “Facebook depression”?
I can’t say whether the rest of the report is as sloppy as this one small section. But if this section is any indication of what passes for “rigorous review” in the AAP, then I suspect the entire clinical report is of questionable value and should be taken with a healthy grain of salt.
BTW, just for fun, you can insert so many things into that last quote —
“The intensity of human relationships is thought to be a factor that may trigger depression in some adolescents.”
“The intensity of reading a lot of Russian classical literature or 20th century existentialists is thought to be a factor that may trigger depression in some adolescents.”
“The intensity of having friends you care about and being involved in your first real romantic relationships is thought to be a factor that may trigger depression in some adolescents.”
“The intensity of the parental relationship is thought to be a factor that may trigger depression in some adolescents.”
“The intensity of telephone use (if this were the 1980s) is thought to be a factor that may trigger depression in some adolescents.”
You can see how absurd such statements become when other daily life, older technologies and activities are substituted for the scapegoat of “the online world.”
I think people should write to the Editors of Pediatrics and voice their concern over the shoddy “research” that is being published as truth in their journal. They have a lot of influence in the field and most people will not check their references but take what is written in their journal as true scientific findings. This is a failure of the peer-review system and it should be pointed out. At the very least they should publish an addendum to address these issues. The fact of the matter is, there is no published data in scientific outlets that supports those claims. And it seems pretty obvious that Dr. O’Keeffe hasn’t even read the abstracts of the papers she cites. I don’t have any fancy letters after my name, but even I can tell from the abstract that the Davila paper is irrelevant to her argument. Second hand reports from the media are not proof of anything and shouldn’t be reported in scientific journals as such.
I know *adults* who get bent out of shape when someone unfriends them or insults them on Facebook. My own feeling is that when one’s self-esteem and equanimity are that tightly bound to a social networking site, it’s not the site that is the problem.
And at least Facebook has one clear advantage over the Real World: I can block people I find toxic!
As shoddy as the research is, Facebook still deserves a close look on how it affects people. People have comitted suicide over information that ends up on Facebook.
I consult on various social network sites and have a particular interest in depression and disability. I have serious misgivings on sites such as facebook which can channel very vulnerable people into even more manipulative suicide sites under the guise of ‘friendship and networking’. Disabled people do often spend more time in front of computer screens than able-bodied and are often given to depression. I am trying to develop meditation courses that might alleviate the effects of too much ‘facebook reality’.
Dr. O’Keeffe continues to cite my “compelling interviews” on facebook depression. Once again, I invite readers to view my website, which I continue to update to further clarify how the media has misinterpreted my research and the importance of focusing on science rather than media reports when disseminating information to the public. Thank you. — Joanne Davila
http://www.psychology.sunysb.edu/jdavila-/webpage/facebook%20depression%20controversy.htm
Joanne, I had a good look at your site and your points are well made and noted. Clarifications on cited material is always helpful.
Mike
I do think that there is an element of Facebook depression amongst teens and children, similar to its presence in adults (as a recent study did demonstrate). It is not because they are depressed and using Facebook, in my opinion, it is because they are comparing themselves at all times to their peers, finding fault within themselves.
I have many teenage clients who report having difficult getting off of Facebook but being acutely aware of how it can, at times, make them feel badly, especially if they see photos from a party to which they weren’t invited, or see that their ex-boyfriend is seeing someone else.
Social media has both positive and negative elements. The comparison element, especially for teens, can, in fact increase negative and depressed mood, and it is this that the report in Pediatrics is trying to highlight. And, quite frankly, is something about which we all need to be aware.
I saw the lead author of the Pediatrics report at the Digital, Media and Learning conference in Long Beach. She had the same tendency to make sweeping statements about “research says media does xx” without actually citing real evidence. The crowd at this conference was very pro media and were not happy with her generalizations. Although I appreciated her perspective of caution and admonition to look at both the positives and the negatives of media, I thought she completely misjudged her audience. Apparently she speaks frequently on CNN and while I have not seen her clips (they are on YouTube), I imagine she appeals because of these kinds of sound bites. However, since she is an MD, she has gotten the attention of the main stream media, and parents, who probably believe her anecdotal evidence. Very sad that Pediatrics also validated this kind of work.
Yalda T Uhls, Children’s Digital Media Center@LA
UCLA
Dr. Davila – Unbelievable. It’s equally unbelievable that a media interview is considered “rigorous” evidence and a proper scientific review by the American Academy of Pediatrics. It makes me completely mistrust anything published by the American Academy of Pediatrics now.
cdmc@la… Thanks for sharing that personal perspective of your take by seeing the lead author speak.
Indeed, nobody’s saying that Facebook and depression may not be related in some manner (e.g., that people who are already depressed may take comfort in connecting with their friends or playing a game on Facebook; or that it’s possible it contributes to some people’s unhappy feelings if they spend a lot of time ruminating about the “friends” they see on the site). Just that the broad, sweeping generalizations made in the report — and supported by nothing more than media news stories about research, not the research itself — is the worse kind of fear-mongering.
And not the kind one would expect to find coming out of a professional organization like the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP).
I have reviewed the article referenced in this blog from the journal “Pediatrics” As noted it is a clinical report and NOT an original research article. As such it provides a survey of current information available on(as the title states) “The Impact of Social Media on Children, Adolescents, and Families”. Unlike a research study, it is not intended to prove either causation or correlation. The article talks about benefits (like socialization and enhanced learning opportunities) as well as risks of social media used by adolescents. Under the section of “Risks of Youth Using Social Media” is a 1 paragraph subsection entitled ” Facebook Depression”. The others state in the first sentence ” Researchers have proposed a new phenomenon called “Facebook Depression” defined as depression that develops when preteens and teens spend a great deal of time on social media sites such as Facebook, and then begin to exhibit classic symptoms of depression.” They then reference 6 references (out of a total of 32 for the article). Two of the references that speak to this issue are from the Journal of Adolescence and were published in 2009. Finally the article spends more time providing pediatricians recommendations about how parents can help promote safe and positive use of social media for their pre-teens and teens than it does on “Facebook Depression”. As a clinician-educator in a large academic medical center, I don’t see any problem with the authors’ report. I do not see how they are creating a term that they themselves are reference from their citations.
I just want to say THANK YOU John and Joanne!!!
I am currently writing a research essay in which we were allowed to choose our own topic, I chose to go with:
The impact of social media on teenagers: Can depression result from too much time online?
I have done a lot of research to try and find reputable sources as well as the different views on the subject, after having read the American Pediatrics report a number of times, the research just didn’t seem to stack up with my other sources, something didn’t seem right. So I copied and pasted the first sentence from the so-called ‘facebook depression’ paragraph and up came your page as the first link in Google…
So as a person who who deals with depression on a daily basis – thank you and I say thank you to you again for getting the facts right, I am working in digital marketing and a firm believer in research!
I’m an adult who was diagnosed with Depression before I started using Facebook. Personally, and I can only speak for myself, I believe that being involved in the Facebook “community” has contributed to my Depression.Following are some of the actions/inactions that have occurred which have affected me negatively . . .- I post a status report and no-one or very few people respond to it with either a “like” or a “comment”- I post an Inspirational picture or quote that I think my friends will like or benefit from and none of them or very few of them respond (as above)- I ask a question in my status report that I think my friends will find interesting and as above, I recieve little or no response- I wrote in my status recently that I needed help and only 3 friends replied- someone defriends me because they think I have done something to hurt them (this has happened once)- I check my email to see if there are any notifications telling me that friends have replied to something I’ve posted and there aren’t any- a friend is online, I start chatting to them but they don’t respond (this doesn’t always happen)These are just instances that I can think of at the moment – there are more.Since realising how upsetting this makes me I have tried to stop logging in, but for some reason, I keep doing it. I guess I’m hoping that things will change. So far, nothing has.I see other friends who receive many “likes” and “comments” and wonder why I don’t. Am I too boring? Do my friends not really like me? Do my friends ignore my posts? Am I that insignificant that people don’t bother replying?Bluey
I’m an adult who was diagnosed with Depression before I started using Facebook. Personally, and I can only speak for myself, I believe that my choice to be involved in the Facebook “community†has contributed to my Depression.Following are some of the actions/inactions that have occurred which have affected me negatively . . .- I post a status report and no-one or very few people respond to it with either a “like†or a “commentâ€- I post an Inspirational picture or quote that I think my friends will like or benefit from and none of them or very few of them respond (as above)- I ask a question in my status report that I think my friends will find interesting and as above, I recieve little or no response- I wrote in my status recently that I needed help and only 3 friends replied- someone defriends me because they think I have done something to hurt them (this has happened once)- I check my email to see if there are any notifications telling me that friends have replied to something I’ve posted and there aren’t any- a friend is online, I start chatting to them but they don’t respond (this doesn’t always happen)These are just instances that I can think of at the moment – there are more.Since realising how upsetting this makes me I have tried to stop logging in, but for some reason, I keep doing it. I guess I’m hoping that things will change. So far, nothing has.I see other friends who receive many “likes†and “comments†and wonder why I don’t. Am I too boring? Do my friends not really like me? Do my friends ignore my posts? Am I that insignificant that people don’t bother replying?PS I take full responsibility for my reactions – I do not believe that Facebook is at fault in any way.Bluey
If you are going to publish my post, please publish the second one that I wrote, containing the PS stating that I take full responsibility for my reactions and that I don’t believe that Facebook is at fault in any way.Thanking you,Bluey
Comments are closed.