Thus far, the posts have been fairly even-handed. Yes, FB negatives existed in other forms prior to FB, and if humans possessed no character flaws, they would not need social media to feed their sicknesses. The problem with FB is that it ENABLES, although the negatives enabled by texting and Tweeting probably outweigh those enabled by FB; ANY medium which provides the protection of distance enables the cowardly to attack relatively unscathed. The main problem with FB seems to be that many users, in addition to addicting to the rarified distillations of "real life" posted by other FBers [as "real" as "reality TV"], lose inhibitions which ought NOT to be lost, inhibitions which prevent gratuitous cruelty. However, TV and movies were wallowing in gratuitous cruelty and violence LONG before FB was conceived. And peer pressure is far from new. Although as a [retired] professor and as [very much present tense] involved aunt, I deplore much of what FB enables, my personal gripe concerns what OTHER media have done: anyone who blogs, watches YouTube, or merely READS online is urged to "Like" EVERTHING on FB; to "share" EVERYTHING on FB -- a few years ago, users arose en masse to berate Yahoo for thrusting its link to FB into EVERY article, regardless of a "turn off" button. I DEEPLY resent the ads which are forced onto my FB page, with their implication that I somehow endorsed them, and I have now inserted into my profile a disclaimer. [Have also done this on YouTube.] I have endorsed exactly ONE item on FB: a singer. I've made that plain as well. I find FB practices to be heavy-handed, manipulative, intrusive, and insulting. But young users, oriented so obsessively to self and to the actions/opinions of their peers, evidently find FB to be liberating. And we, as the older generation, CAN learn those vital facts which the young seem to express more readily at a computer screen than face to face.