3 ms·
This is the same as saying that the value of cigarettes is the same as what it would cost to pay a smoker to stop smoking. With Facebook users, it can't be ign
by hashkb 8y ago
This is the same as saying that the value of cigarettes is the same as what it would cost to pay a smoker to stop smoking.
With Facebook users, it can't be ignored that, in not all but many cases, we are talking about behavior that ranges from slightly compulsive to downright addicted.
- izzydata 8y agoDo you believe it is not possible to alter the usage behavior of a person addicted to a substance with money? The cost might be unreasonably high to get them to stop, but it might be possible.
- hashkb 8y agoThat's irrelevant to this argument. The amount you have to pay an addict to stop using something does not give you the value of that thing. Gambling should be easy. Casino gambling has an obvious negative value to gamblers because most gamblers lose most of the time. If it costs me $X to pay a gambler to never enter the casino again... I don't see any connection between that cost and the "value of gambling in casinos".
- izzydata 8y agoThat's fair. I also wouldn't consider it the value of that thing.
- carapace 8y agoThat's beside the point: You cannot conclude that cigarettes are beneficial by this method. Right in the abstract they say: > ... our results show that the benefits these services provide for their users are large. ...which is absurd.
- rdiddly 8y agoI would, at the very least, say "perceived benefit."
- quadrangle 8y agoeven that is not fair, given the tobacco metaphor