this post was submitted on 25 Apr 2025
1067 points (99.1% liked)

Technology

69391 readers
3126 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
[–] easily3667@lemmus.org 0 points 9 hours ago (1 children)

Op didn't say social media companies today are like tobacco companies today. They said social media companies today are like tobacco companies at their worst.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Philip_Morris

This was 1999. Just because you're under 25 doesn't mean most of the world population is under 25.

[–] NauticalNoodle@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 hour ago* (last edited 22 minutes ago)

"Op didn’t say social media companies today are like tobacco companies today"

I don't see how anybody wouldn't infer it from the headline.

also, I read your source and they don't go into any specific detail about the actions of the big tobacco companies with the exception of labeling cigarette packs as "light, ultra light, mild, etc..." I was around for that and nobody was under the impression that there was a safe cigarette and the remedy just changed from asking the cashier for a pack of "Camel lights" to a pack of "Camel blues." -At this point in time the Tobacco industry was also already banned from most television and radio marketing, even bilboards ads were disappearing. If comparing social media companies to tobacco companies from 1999 is the standard we're trying to establish here, then I would have expected RICO cases against Twitter, Facebook, and Google back around some time between 2010-2015 -They are so much worse than that now.