Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Social Networks

Instagram Boss Says Social Media is Like Cars: People Are Going To Die (mashable.com) 115

Posted by msmash from the how-about-that dept.
An anonymous reader shares a report: Adam Mosseri isn't doing Facebook any favors. The head of Instagram was interviewed on the Recode Media podcast this week following a damning series of articles in the Wall Street Journal based on leaked internal Facebook documents. In the interview with host Peter Kafka, Mosseri attempted to defend the negative effects his platform has on its users by comparing social media to cars. The gist of his argument? Some people are just going to get run over, and that's the price we all pay. "We know that more people die than would otherwise because of car accidents, but by and large cars create way more value in the world than they destroy," argued Mosseri. "And I think social media is similar."

The Journal story in question explains how internal Facebook research (Facebook owns Instagram) found Instagram was making life worse for a segment of its users. "We make body image issues worse for one in three teen girls," read one 2019 internal slide obtained by the paper. "Teens blame Instagram for increases in the rate of anxiety and depression," read another. In response to Mosseri's car comments, Kafka rightly pointed out that automobiles are subject to intense safety regulation on a federal level, which Mosseri countered by pivoting between saying social media regulation is welcome and, well, that it's also potentially problematic. "We think you have to be careful," he said, "because regulation can cause more problems."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Instagram Boss Says Social Media is Like Cars: People Are Going To Die More

Instagram Boss Says Social Media is Like Cars: People Are Going To Die

Comments Filter:

  • Cars provide clear benefits. Instagram does not. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by gurps_npc ( 621217 ) on Thursday September 16, 2021 @03:33PM (#61802281) Homepage

    Motor vehicles save owners time, which is clearly worth the money. People buy cars with real money because they know the time they save will be worth far more than the money the cars cost.

    Instagram is entertainment for it's users, not a service that saves them time. As such, it it in no way similar to cars because it solely costs money and does not generate anything worth money for it's users. Instead more similar to playing football, with the risks of concussion. But instagram is also an entertainment service that gives itself away because no one would pay anything for it if they charged. It is quite literally not worth anything.

    Now some people may think playing full contact football is worth the risk, but now a days they know the risk.

    I doubt anyone believes instagram is worth anything, hence they do not charge for it.

    • First I think motor vehicles save lives in the long run, they let you get to hospital, bring us food, etc. Yes people do die in car accidents, but is probably outweighed by the amount of people who are saved because of the indirect benefits they bring.

      I don't think Instagram is worthless and most people do know the risks, people may be mean to you. Although they don't pay for it via money, they definitely pay via their time, which according to you is worth money. Not me, I don't have or want an Instagram ac

      • Make no mistake: you pay by volunteering your personal data for resale and full, irrevocable license to your pictures or other content.

      • At 30,000 people a year in the US getting killed by motorists, I'd say it's about a draw. One that could be solved by mandatory driver testing to renew, short license lengths and going back to organizing cities around people and helping people get around as the first priority instead of the movement and storage of cars.

        Not saying get rid of all cars, but, maybe make it so grabbing the car is something you do because you got too much to carry or too far to carry it, rather than the default to the point it's

      • Yes people do die in car accidents, but is probably outweighed by the amount of people who are saved because of the indirect benefits they bring.

        No, it is outweighed by the number of people that are created because of automobiles. Autos are integral to the operations of all our human manufacturing systems. Without the Haber process, the maximum human population could never get past 2 billions. Feeding chemical reactors petrochemicals feeds more people, and that includes the ICEs that move those chemicals from underground to the factories.

    • Exactly what I came here to say. But let me improve on that:

      It is not entertainment.
      People have to get it out of their heads, that such "services" are just harmless entertainment.
      Didn't we read, just a few days ago, of Facebook or TikTok or whatever literally having a department of over a 1000 people, whose whole and entire job is nothing else but to make it as addicting to you as possible? (While being completely useless still, mind you. And note that I didn't say "enjoyable"!)

      It's more in the category of

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by suss ( 158993 )

      Instagram has a negative value to the world, it makes it worse.

    • and does not generate anything worth money

      You're actually arguing that looking at Britney Spears' ass isn't worth money? Maybe not your money, but it's worth a lot! Not as much as Madonna's, but a lot.

      Oh, wait, sorry, she deleted her account. OK, granted, nothing worth money is left there.

  • liability (Score:5, Insightful)

    by awwshit ( 6214476 ) on Thursday September 16, 2021 @03:37PM (#61802301)

    When someone dies in a car there is almost always someone liable for that death. Is Instagram taking on the liability when it goes badly for some people?

    • For starters, "people are going to die" is a fabrication, not a quote. Mosseri didn't say anything about people dying.

      Of course, every day people do commit suicide, and they and their families blame it on various things. If you banned them all - it would be a lot.

      • Its not about the specific harm of death. My words were 'when it goes badly', whatever badly means to someone. My point is that when there is injury there is also liability, except in the case of social media where they get to enjoy the upside with almost no downside. If their product is harming people they are liable.for that harm.

      • Re:liability (Score:4, Interesting)

        by timeOday ( 582209 ) on Thursday September 16, 2021 @03:46PM (#61802347)
        I should say - he did reference people dying in his car analogy, as an extreme example of what we will accept so long as the balance is positive. But he didn't say extend the analogy of people dying back to social media.

        Stop and think what the negative slant is really proposing here - stopping people from communicating because other people sometimes make them feel sad and worthless? It's crazy talk.

        • Nobody said anything about stopping people from communicating. The issue is the psychological manipulation that is baked into social media apps. That algorithm that drives engagement and feeds people content that they consume whether it's bad or good for them that's at issue. If you fill a teenage girls' feed with crap that undermines their self image, then it's not communication that's the problem. Manipulating people into staying engaged is not good for society, it's good for social media companies.

          • Tell me specifically what we should ban?

            • Tell me specifically what we should ban?

              Algorithms that automatically "drive engagement" by automatically making content recommendations.

              Require recommendations to be made by a human, and also make companies liable (meaning only that they're not shielded from tort claims) for what they recommend.

              • Interesting. I think you'd have trouble still allowing search engines. Also, I'd bet almost all the harm to e.g. girls on social networks is from the other girls and boys in their circle of 'friends'' sniping at each other.

                • Search engines shouldn't be "recommending" shit anyway, they should be listing what was searched for.

          • Except what is that content? "Undermines their self image" could be just a bunch of women in bikinis, which is fine for most people.

        • If we gave a shit about people's mental health, especially here in the states, social media wouldn't be able to depress anybody to the point of suicide. But we don't. And we stigmatize anyone that's self-aware enough to know they need help with their mental issues, actively discouraging people from getting help when they need it. One could argue our entire society is built on the idea that mental health should be dead last on your list of priorities. It's much more important to keep up with the neighbor

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by RobinH ( 124750 )
          We certainly ban certain harmful products (alcohol & tobacco) to underage populations, and that's generally accepted to be a good thing. I can make an argument that higher quality communication happens over a voice phone call, or face to face, than online via social media. So the argument isn't to block communication, it's to recognize that the media affects the quality of the communication, in some cases pushing the quality into negative territory.

      • It's not a fabrication.

        Purely statistically, even optimistically, if you count only the ones with the means, the reason and the will to murder you for it, there's still thousands of people on this planet that fit that set. Literally no matter what it is. It's a small wonder that nobody died already. (We probably just haven't heard of it. And the language barrier is also protecting us.)

        This is exactly why things like the GDPR and the right to be forgotten exists. Why criminal records can go away and you are

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Rhipf ( 525263 )

        Unless the summary is misquoting the article he did say that.

        "We know that more people die than would otherwise because of car accidents, but by and large cars create way more value in the world than they destroy," argued Mosseri. "And I think social media is similar."

        Ok, he didn't actually come right out and say "people are going to die" but when you imply that people die because of cars and then say that social media is similar you are in fact implying that people die because of social media.

        more people die because of cars ---> social media is similar ---> more people die because of social media.

    • Using said car analogy, Instagram would be liable if a flaw in their platform caused someone to die. I guess you could make the case if a security breach leaked personal details about a person or something similar. Otherwise, Instagram isn't really at fault for people being stupid on their platform, unless they are ordered to take content down and don't.

      • OK, how many people did MySpace kill, how many people does Youtube kill?

        If Instragram is killing more people that other sites, it must have flaws that are leading to these deaths.

        That's the same thing they do in vehicle investigations.

  • More like big tobacco (Score:5, Insightful)

    by hsmith ( 818216 ) on Thursday September 16, 2021 @03:38PM (#61802305)
    Facebook and its garbage peers are nothing more than digital tobacco companies, selling a shit productâ"with all the lies and coverups that come with it Time to regulate them as such.
    • Exactly - the features that are known to be causing harm should be removed from the platform, just like a car manufacturer is forced to replace faulty wiring that causes the car to burst into flames upon occasion. Except for social media, if they did this I'm not sure what would be left?

  • Underlying problem is the scale of the competition (Score:5, Insightful)

    by shanen ( 462549 ) on Thursday September 16, 2021 @03:39PM (#61802311) Homepage Journal

    Used to be a time when it was relatively easy to be one of the most attractive girls in the neighborhood. Or the fastest runner in the village. Or at least personally significant in some way that "everyone" knew about. (Within Dunbar's limit?)

    As the scale of competition changed, it became harder and harder. Now each of us can feel like we're competing with everyone in the world in every category of competition. All of the time.

    If you have any competitive spirit and that doesn't depress you, then you must be a master of not paying attention. You can't win that rat race.

    • Re:Underlying problem is the scale of the competit (Score:4, Insightful)

      by DarkOx ( 621550 ) on Thursday September 16, 2021 @03:59PM (#61802413) Journal

      In a way I think this is also the source of why our political discourse gets more and more extreme.

      Every thing any candidate or office holder says gets posted on social media. Someone somewhere finds some aspect of it less than 'ideologically pure' and than infotainment media, picks up on it. So pols are forced to adopt either more extreme positions so nobody questions their conservative or progressive chops.

      What social media does much of the time is turn private and semi-private conversations, exhibitions, and interactions into public spectacles where third parties for who have no business to weigh in on with recrimination and pile-ons. Social media is the gasoline on every fire. I forget who it was but someone said if you want to understand the corrosive phenomenon that is social media just think about the 90's rap feuds; social media is giving every Tom, Dick and Hairy the platform and sensationalism music media gave those big label rap stars.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Merk42 ( 1906718 )
      Speak for yourself, I'm the best at everything that's worth being good at and when I enter the room everyone stands up and claps.

    • The problem isn't the scale of the competition - it's the competitiveness. What's wrong with being just "good enough" and who told you otherwise? American exceptionalism?

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by shanen ( 462549 )

        I think it's natural to be at least a little competitive, though you're right to imply that some people go to far. But thanks to the Internet, ANY competitiveness at all leads to a fatal race condition.

        Let me word it a bit differently, focusing on the running example. If you were a pretty good runner, you might be known as the fastest runner in your village, and you might hold the title for some years. Nowadays you would be expected to compete at the district, state, national, and international level, and i

      • "What's wrong with being just 'good enough'...?" -- omnichad

        least appropriate username ever.

        • Jack of all digital trades, master of none. If that doesn't fit my user ID, I don't know what does.

    • There's studies showing that humans are most happy when their community is between 75-125 people. That's about the limit of where most people can actually know everyone they communicate with and once you get past that we start splitting into tribes and cliques and the overall health of the group at large begins to degenerate. I haven't read up on that in about fifteen years or so, but I can't imagine it's changed much since some of the studies leaned heavily on writings that were hundreds of years old. A

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by gweihir ( 88907 )

        Indeed. It is also a reason why many people encapsulate themselves in filter-bubbles. They are completely lost and cannot deal with the situation, so they create an artificial "tribe" where everybody basically says the same thing.

        My personal way to deal with the situation is to ignore or focus less on people and to focus on what is being said instead and whether it has merit or not. (Probably one of the reasons all he "stalkers" I occasionally acquire here on /. give up pretty fast.) That approach works and

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by shanen ( 462549 )

          This branch reminded me of some old research about village life versus the big city. In a small town you almost have to look at and recognize and greet everyone you see, but when you move to the big city one of the first "skills" you learn is to ignore strangers as completely as possible.

        • The lack of ability to ignore comments without merit all stems from the lack of concern for mental health in general in our current society/societies. There's something to knowing what you can address and what should be ignored, and that stems from an internal understanding of who and what you are that most people seem to lack these days.

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by gweihir ( 88907 )

            Interesting point. Makes sense to me.

            Sure, historical "class awareness" is a problem too, but this is not the same thing and I do not think you meant that. What this is about is a critical view on your own skills, level of insight and capabilities. That is also the only real way to get better at things and to understand more. If your think you already understand everything that matters, you stop growing. I think with information so easily available (but heavily mixed with non-information and misinformation)

            • Yep. I learned from my grandfather many, many years ago that it's much more important to keep learning than it is to KNOW things. That man was still reading science papers and historical documents up until his last breath because he valued real knowledge. As much as he enjoyed looking up things on the computer once he had access to one, he knew how to cut through the garbage and get to the real data. That seems to be something in his generation that has begun to fade from most folks's minds.

              Critical thi

    • I'm not a trifling weak-minded airhead so I'm not depressed.

      Most humans are weak, vain and otherwise self-limiting. That is a choice.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by shanen ( 462549 )

        Quit hard to figure out your reply. Main possibilities:

        (1) Victim shaming or blaming.
        (2) Going for Funny in an obscure way.
        (3) Some sort of "superior Libertarian" drivel.

        Did recently read an interesting book related to the possible punchline, however. Part of The Enigma of Reason is that we mostly don't choose. Most of the time we just act first, and rather mindlessly, but with reasons to follow if someone asks. The authors focused on reasons with "my-side bias", but now I'm wondering about two dimensions

    • >

      If you have any competitive spirit and that doesn't depress you, then you must be a master of not paying attention. You can't win that rat race.

      Not just a master...the best!

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by ceoyoyo ( 59147 )

      Nah, it's fine. You just have to realize it's fake.

      The instagrammers are fake. The YouTubers and TikTokers and Twitterers too. And the fakest of them all are the Linkediners.

      Social media seems to be hard on the ordinary user, but it seems to be *really* hard on the stars. It must be rough, being perfect and excited and overjoyed all the time.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by shanen ( 462549 )

        If you're talking about the professional influencers, then I think that's a different problem. If you're talking about legitimate celebrities who are just using social media for cheap advertising, then I don't even see it as a problem. Both of these groups are basically driven by simple economic motivations, and there is no solvable problem there, because the "income revenue stream" can never be big enough. (Or maybe it makes more sense to say that the solution is to keep expenses below income?)

        I'm not disa

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by gweihir ( 88907 )

      Pretty much. People with some insight into reality can compensate because they understand this. But most do not understand the scope and still use a "tribe size" model of society when comparing themselves with 100 million people on social media. That can only go wrong. Hence social media needs to restrict itself to reduce the harm it does.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by shanen ( 462549 )

        Concurrence except about self-regulation. "That trick never works."

        (But mostly I'm wondering why my minor comment seems to have touched so many nerves.)

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by mjwx ( 966435 )

      Used to be a time when it was relatively easy to be one of the most attractive girls in the neighborhood. Or the fastest runner in the village. Or at least personally significant in some way that "everyone" knew about. (Within Dunbar's limit?)

      As the scale of competition changed, it became harder and harder. Now each of us can feel like we're competing with everyone in the world in every category of competition. All of the time.

      If you have any competitive spirit and that doesn't depress you, then you must be a master of not paying attention. You can't win that rat race.

      Here is the problem with many parts of western society, but the US embodies this in particular... Why do we need to compete on every single level? Why are children taught to only measure their worth against another.

      In Australian society over the last 20 years there has been a bit of a sea change, its OK to not be the smartest, or the fastest or the prettiest. Just work on being as good as you can.

      I heard a phrase a long time ago which taught me the difference between a winner and a loser. A winner com

  • I was going to mention regulation on cars, but TFA covers that pretty heavily.

  • No, more like tobacco (Score:3, Interesting)

    by nospam007 ( 722110 ) * on Thursday September 16, 2021 @03:40PM (#61802325)

    It's use has to be forbidden everywhere, to save lives.

    • Cigarettes. Not really tobacco.

      Natural tobacco leaves are comparatively harmless.
      It's only the 600+ additives that make cigarettes literally (and this has been researched) as addictive as Heroin.

      And I know this for a fact, because I have seen it. Relative of mine from France, land of the smokers, got rid of his addiction, by growing his own tobacco, and smoking that. He noticed that that pressure to smoke lowered a lot, and he could just say "... meh...". It lost its extreme drag.
      Ditto for two of my buddies

      • Natural tobacco leaves are comparatively harmless.

        Yeah, harmless [osha.gov].

        Regularly inhaling organic combustion byproducts is gonna eventually give you cancer, whether it's wood smoke, tobacco smoke, or lettuce smoke [youtube.com].

        Social media may be stupid as all get out, but it's nowhere near as serious of a problem as cancer. The real gist of all this is that parents are doing a shitty job teaching their kids that people frequently are nasty to each other on the internet, and to just switch it off [youtube.com] if you can't deal with it.

    • It backfires by creating an UNregulated market as it did with alcohol.

      Laws often have the reverse of the intended effect, see also the War On Some Drugs.

  • Are cars better for pedestrians? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by RobinH ( 124750 ) on Thursday September 16, 2021 @03:43PM (#61802333) Homepage
    Social media is designed to be addictive so people spend time uploading all kinds of data that can be used to target advertising to them. It's not designed to be beneficial to the user, but only to the company running the service (the supplier) and the advertisers (the customers). The user, in this case, is not really a party to the transaction. Sure people get run over by cars, but we recognize that's a problem and we have safeguards in place to minimize it. Right now, it's a bit like saying factory farming is beneficial for the farmer and the consumers, and we accept that it's not great for the cattle. That's what Instagram users are, the cattle.

    • Should children or teenagers "drive" these services?
      We let children drive toys, maybe with other children but not with adults (except bumper cars...still age limits..)

      Many problems come from mixing adults with children online. Teens can practice being nasty to each other but probably should be kept away from younger children just like adults should separated as well. What healthy adult would want to do socialize with kids that are not relatives? (I'd argue even relatives do not need online access.) Hey, k

  • But shouldn't technology and business provide some utility or enrichment to society?

    If they're going to sell digital crack to the masses and work the psychology of the user interface like a casino owner, then they best brace for the inevitable regulations. Assuming the social media industry doesn't voluntarily regulate themselves.

    • Sorry, which country gets to regulate a global social media network? How would that work with legitimacy, exactly? Some kind of American Empire law then, is that what you have in mind?

      • Sorry, which country gets to regulate a global social media network?

        Any country where they wish to do business. Business activities can include advertising, soliciting, accepting payments, etc.

        How would that work with legitimacy, exactly?

        How does Toyota sell cars in Japan, Australia, and France? They each have different regulations to conform to.

        Some kind of American Empire law then, is that what you have in mind?

        That doesn't sound very democratic or fair. Is there a reason you jumped to such a specious conclusion? a personal bias or fear driving it, or perhaps a little dishonest rhetoric?

        • So a post should be regulated by which government(s)? The government of the poster or the government(s) of the viewers of the post?

          You seem to be advocating for regulation by the government of the viewer. (never mind if they're on an extended holiday or work trip somewhere).

          So this would imply complex filters tailored to each country, which would filter out or de-weight content for the viewers in that country. And no sanctions on the poster, because they may be out of the jurisdiction.

          Sounds like an unworka

  • "cars create way more value in the world than they destroy, argued Mosseri. And I think social media is similar."
    Restated.
    "Social media creates way more value in the world than it destroys."

    I hurt myself laughing at the idea that social media creates value, other than for share holders and executives.

    • Absolutely it does! Social media is a great marketing tool for small businesses. Also great for sharing and connecting with some distant friends. There are, of course, the alternative ways of doing the same things, but social media makes it pretty convenient

  • We should treat Facebook/Instagram like cars (Score:3)

    by thegarbz ( 1787294 ) on Thursday September 16, 2021 @03:54PM (#61802393)

    Let's put huge rules and regulations on what Facebook can and can't do. Let's give a basic competency test to everyone who wants to use Facebook, license its use, and revoke the privilege of using Facebook for stupid people like Anti-vaxers and pushers of the Big Lie. Let's also spend $500million a year in the USA alone just enforcing these rules.

    Maybe when we're done there'll be less stupid people on Facebook. Certainly if we take this up there'll be one less stupid executive working there.

  • Except cars have seatbelts and air bags to prevent loss of life. :) I wonder what the Instagram equivalent would be in this simile. ??

    Josh K.

  • He compares it to cars, which, along with the roads they drive on, are some of the most heavily regulated aspects of society, then he asks for no regulation?

  • You publicly eviscerate yourself with a framing hammer.

  • Not just social media but cars too.

    I deleted facebook and Instagram off my phone a few weeks ago. I also downloaded my facebook pics, and while there also saw how and where FB collects data from your cell. If you don't keep it in check, it's constantly grabbing your GPS data and feeding it into their ads system. Did you walk into PetCo? You'll get blasted with pet ads for days after. It's a constant drain on your battery.

    I don't think many users are aware of these things, not to mention the rumors that t

  • To make an omelet... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by JoeyRox ( 2711699 ) on Thursday September 16, 2021 @04:03PM (#61802439)
    You have to murder a few unborn fetuses.

  • None of my websites have ever killed anybody. Or even tried!

  • The title says it. When I was growing up, my dad(a programmer for Coulter) limited us to 2 hours on the computer and installed software to prevent us from accessing certain sites. He also supervised our usage and taught us how to navigate certain issues. If a teen is having a problem with social media, that's on the PARENT. The internet should never have been designed for anyone less than 18. The world is a dangerous place and the internet is an extension of that. I blame the helicopter-parenting gene

    • When I was a kid, kids were smart enough to operate computers, and if somebody wanted to install a filter, they'd need to find a kid to help them do it!

      I blame the helicopter-parenting generation

      That's you, kiddo.

  • alongside most equivalent websites ("apps"?), some... walking advertisements would have to find another job.

    If even half motor vehicles in existence vanished, society would collapse within a day, probably less.

  • Both single passenger / single family cars and Instagram/Facebook are addictive products, marketed in such a way that users perceive more benefit than harm. These are generally bold faced lies.

    The massive, unchecked deployment of both in the United States has not been good for the country.

    • Both single passenger / single family cars and Instagram/Facebook are addictive products, marketed in such a way that users perceive more benefit than harm. These are generally bold faced lies.

      The massive, unchecked deployment of both in the United States has not been good for the country.

      You don't even distinguish between an individual choice and their personal benefit/harm analysis, and an analysis at the national level.

      This tells me you live in a megacity in a country with little personal freedom. Or you're an American in a trailer park who can't afford a car.

  • You know where you are? You're in the jungle, baby. You're gonna die!

  • Few humans are intelligent (if you lucked out, understand you are not normal) and many are malicious.

  • Good gravy, take some responsibility, people! It's your brain, you feed it, it lives in your skull and yours alone. If you feed it trash day and night, it will turn to mush, and that's totally on you.

    Stop expecting the world to protect you from your own choices.

  • It is going to have to be nuked from orbit... just to be safe.
  • But Instagram isn't social media. It's an overly elaborate shopping mall.

    Actual social media can and will be used to network with people so that you can meet individuals with like-minded interests and values. As an example most Warhammer 40K gaming events are organized on Facebook. A coworker finds his fishing buddies on Facebook too. Social media can be very useful for people who want to find friends especially for adults where it's very difficult for adults to meet new people.

    I don't see Instagram

  • There's TONS of safety regs for cars. This CEO just made the case that social media needs the same oversight.

  • People can live without cars. People can live without Instagram.

    People can organize their lives to get by with no car. Live near a transit stop and/or in a walkable neighborhood. In some cities, owning a car is a net cost in time and money. Same can be said for Instagram (and a bunch of other social media crap). Learn to live without it and use your time more constructively.

    • People can choose not to be users but OTHERS who do can still harm them.

      I may not be a crazy facebook/etc nutcase but even crazy morons who are BANNED from driving can still use Instagram and still own guns...

  • Some corporate spokespeople are like loaded guns, and occasionally shoot themselves in the foot.

Slashdot Top Deals

"Money is the root of all money." -- the moving finger

Close