this post was submitted on 25 Apr 2025
895 points (99.2% liked)

Technology

69298 readers
3831 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

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.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Linktank@lemmy.today 66 points 23 hours ago (5 children)

Except, you know, tobacco companies are modern day tobacco companies. They were never defeated.

[–] acosmichippo@lemmy.world 63 points 22 hours ago* (last edited 22 hours ago) (2 children)

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.

[–] SaharaMaleikuhm@feddit.org 8 points 4 hours ago

Yeah, it's crazy how many commenters here are completely missing the point. I should really stop assuming people have any sort of intelligence.

[–] Sixtyforce@sh.itjust.works 21 points 21 hours ago* (last edited 21 hours ago) (2 children)

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.

[–] Broken@lemmy.ml 1 points 23 minutes ago

Well, considering all the tobacco companies entrenched themselves in food companies you're basically right.

It's why foods are addictive, and have very little nutritional value. It's beyond "oh no its full of sugar" it the fact that everything is processed and is full of fake sugar (as an example).

Muted in the English world.

I don't know think you've been to Europe much... Just a guess

[–] TacticalCheddar@lemm.ee 9 points 22 hours ago (1 children)

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.

[–] Maeve@kbin.earth -3 points 18 hours ago (1 children)

How many vape, which is more harmful, more addictive?

[–] zarkanian@sh.itjust.works 8 points 17 hours ago (1 children)
[–] Maeve@kbin.earth -3 points 16 hours ago (1 children)
[–] Jg1@lemmy.zip 9 points 16 hours ago (1 children)

That article makes it clear it is less harmful.

[–] sunzu2@thebrainbin.org 4 points 23 hours ago (1 children)

They won't stop mega corping like they used to, they got supplemented by cars then oil then banks and now tech/pharma

[–] thejml@lemm.ee 6 points 22 hours ago

No company will stop attempting to achieve mega corp status in a capitalist environment. Gotta make that line go up and to the right!

[–] Dindonmasker@sh.itjust.works 3 points 22 hours ago

You made me notice that a lot of companies learned from tobacco companies not just those XD