People assume they're immune to social network dynamics, but other people aren't

Despite the public criticism, the company has

a

posted record profits. And billions of people—including more than two-thirds of American adults—continue to use the unregulated version of Facebook that exists now.

I have been studying the social dynamics of the internet for 30 years, and I suspect what's behind these apparent contradictions is something psychological. People know about Facebook's problems, but each person assumes he or she is largely immune—even while imagining that everyone else is very susceptible to influence. That paradox helps explain why people keep using the site—which still boasts more than 2 billion monthly average users. And ironically, it also helps explain what's behind pressure to regulate the social media giant.

It's not me, it's them

The psychological tendency at work here is called "the third person effect," the belief that media don't fool me, and maybe don't fool you, but all those other people are sitting ducks for media effects.

Ironically, this dynamic can encourage people to support restrictions on media consumption—by others. If someone uses, say, a social media site and feels immune to its negative influences, it triggers another psychological phenomenon called the "influence of presumed influence." When that happens, a person worries that everyone else falls victim, and supports efforts to protect others, even if they think they themselves don't need the protection.

https://phys.org/news/2019-05-people-assume-theyre-immune-social.html