The paper you're quoting seems very insightful, even if I do not consider it an authoritative source, it seemed balanced and sensible.
For "TL;DR" folks, you can scroll at page 24
> Without a more careful theoretical foundation explaining why social media affects users, research risks comparing behaviors that are simply not equivalent. Passively browsing information on Facebook is simply not comparable to having a conversation, theoretically or from the perspective of users themselves.
After reading the piece I immediately thought about his words
> Everyone a person needs has long been on messengers. It's pointless and time-consuming to maintain increasingly obsolete friend lists on public networks. Reading other people's news is brain clutter. To clear out room for the new, one shouldn't fear getting rid of old baggage.
The "new FB" is as unsuitable to some kind of people as the "old one".
For "TL;DR" folks, you can scroll at page 24
> Without a more careful theoretical foundation explaining why social media affects users, research risks comparing behaviors that are simply not equivalent. Passively browsing information on Facebook is simply not comparable to having a conversation, theoretically or from the perspective of users themselves.
People in [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14213868] (Pavel Durov Has Unfriended Everyone) dismissed Durov's action as a marketing move (it is, but NOT ONLY).
After reading the piece I immediately thought about his words
> Everyone a person needs has long been on messengers. It's pointless and time-consuming to maintain increasingly obsolete friend lists on public networks. Reading other people's news is brain clutter. To clear out room for the new, one shouldn't fear getting rid of old baggage.
The "new FB" is as unsuitable to some kind of people as the "old one".