From their own internal metrics, tech giants have long known what independent research now continuously validates: that the content that is most likely to go viral is that which induces strong feelings such as outrage and disgust, regardless of its underlying veracity. Moreover, they also know that such content is heavily engaged with and most profitable. Far from acting against false, harmful content, they placed profits above its staggering—and damaging—social impact to implicitly encourage it while downplaying the massive costs.
Social media titans embrace essentially the same hypocrisy the tobacco industry embodied when they feigned concern over harm reduction while covertly pushing their product ever more aggressively. With the reelection of Trump, our tech giants now no longer even pretend to care.
Engagement is their business model, and doubt about the harms they cause is their product. Tobacco executives, and their bought-off scientists, once proclaimed uncertainty over links between cigarettes and lung cancer. Zuckerberg has likewise testified to Congress, “The existing body of scientific work has not shown a causal link between using social media and young people having worse mental health, ” even while studies find self-harm, eating disorder and misogynistic material spreads on these platform unimpeded. This equivocation echoes protestations of tobacco companies that there was no causal evidence of smoking harms, even as incontrovertible evidence to the contrary rapidly amassed.
I think that, in 10-20 years, the research around social media addiction will bear out this way, yes. It’s wild to me how every time the discussion around regulating social media comes up, most people just kind of ignore its effects on kids’ mental health.
They are the asbestos of the internet.
Getting a dumbphone was one of the best decisions I took in my life. It helps me focus better and read books. I don’t actually need the internet with me 24/7. If you really need me, you can call.
Try it. Some people will call you crazy. Just ignore them.
I got an e-ink e-reader in the pocketable form factor of a phone (Bigme Hibreak Color). Instead of doomscrolling social media, I read a couple paragraphs of the Oppenheimer biography. Next I’ll reread Neuromancer. It’s life-changing. 10/10 highly recommended.
People tend to interact with technology on a default permit basis, which is partly why they have weather-vane attention spans and obliterated focusing capacity. They’re like Pavlov’s dog, responding to every notification and ping and service update; and social media is treated as the default use state until something else yells for their attention.
I have notifications denied by default. Notifications are lame and a known privacy threat. No one needs to be bothered because someone responded in a group chat or a new post surfaced on a Lemmy comm or a ‘deal alert’ got pushed by some marketing dipshit on the other side of the planet. That they exist at all for email is ludicrous. Email is an asychronous protocol - delayed responses are a feature.
Stop giving this stuff attention on demand and start allocating attention windows where it will get seen to. Email that gets in front of your eyes is 99 per cent transaction stubs if you’re doing it right; there is no more reason to pay it any attention outside 7pm for 10 or 15 minutes (say). Similar treatment should apply to most messaging to be honest.
ok but like if I don’t have music and noise cancelling earbuds I will explode
pretty sure they are options
I mean you could walk around with an IPod, but that’s basically a phone anyway.
Wait till you find out we still have tobacco companies, and they’ve been getting into the vape and weed game this whole time
I’ve been telling this to family and friends, apparently they didn’t want to agree. At least there is article now. I do think current social media will be looked at in future like tobacco/smoking is currently looked at.
Wow. I don’t know why I’ve never made the parallel before, but yes, this is a good way to explain to people the woes of these companies that can be overlooked in the moment but are painfully clear in hindsight.
Except, you know, tobacco companies are modern day tobacco companies. They were never defeated.
Muted in the English world. I argue junk food commercials draw a lot of parallels with cigarette commercials of the past. For some reason obesity isn’t worth prevention so the advertisements are pretty gross.
Soft drinks. Coca Cola especially really loves to tie emotions and sports/holidays to sugar water.
Muted in the English world.
I don’t know think you’ve been to Europe much… Just a guess
it’s an analogy; the author is drawing parallels between them. Obviously Tobacco companies were not “defeated” but they were regulated to hell, and I’m sure the author would say that’s what we need to do with social media too.
The flaw in the analogy is that it assumes that those effects are limited to some companies when in reality every single company that existed in history has behaved this way if they weren’t stopped by regulation.
Most companies aren’t peddling a toxic product like cigarettes (or social media).
The flaw in the analogy is that it assumes that those effects are limited to some companies
no it doesn’t.
They were never defeated.
When you say “defeated”, what exactly do you mean? You mean that they should cease to exist to be considered as such? If that’s the case then I would say it’s an unrealistic expectation.
I would say that they’ve been largely contained. If I remember correctly, back in the '50s almost half of the American population used to smoke. The percentage of people smoking has been consistently decreasing over the years thanks to regulation and increased taxation. Tobacco companies are definetly not as influential as they once were.
How many vape, which is more harmful, more addictive?
How is it more harmful?
That article makes it clear it is less harmful.
Vape if you want.
They won’t stop mega corping like they used to, they got supplemented by cars then oil then banks and now tech/pharma
No company will stop attempting to achieve mega corp status in a capitalist environment. Gotta make that line go up and to the right!
You made me notice that a lot of companies learned from tobacco companies not just those XD
Even though I knew about most of this, I never realized how striking the parallels are.
Y’all, one of the far-reaching Broligarchy ideas they’re hoping emerges from the ashes of the United States is the DAO, decentralized autonomous organization.
Every action in the block chain. They facilitate, and are predicated on, the idea of treating every aspect of life as a social network. Everything you do is recorded. So daily life ends up incentived toward constant, persistent, corralled engagement. The Network State is the term.
The difference is that you can’t build a society on the mechanics of the tobacco industry. But you can on a human reaction industry.
And this yet another reason why we should be using cryptocurencies that provide actual privacy, like anyone could go right now and see every drug transaction on silk road, or any hacker getting their Bitcoin confiscated, or any transaction ever, except for those done through monero and some with zcash.
Btw where’d you hear abt this? or did you just come up with it?
My problem with theses giants is they don’t provide/publish stats of the current situation of their platform. I can’t think of a stat top of mind, but Metadata about posts, users and many more
The US thrives on negativity 24/7. Its tiresome.
The news thrives on things that get the readers attention, and right now people are paying attention to bad things.
