3 ms·

As a thought experiment, apply the same sentiment to big tobacco. "Has big tobacco really caused that much suffering to you? Seriously, just don't smoke if you

As a thought experiment, apply the same sentiment to big tobacco. "Has big tobacco really caused that much suffering to you? Seriously, just don't smoke if you're worried about the resulting health problems." > For most people, it's just a social network where they post innocuous stories and stay connected This is where things go south. Rewind to the period of time before we understood just how bad cigarettes are for your health. Now in that period of time, your argument would have been applied as such: "For most people, smoking is just something they do to relax, and it makes them feel good." Except, now, we know that's not true. And similarly, we're only just beginning to understand the true impact of social media.

janed0pecod 5y ago
Except social media has a lot of upsides along with all the bad while the tobacco industries have literally none...only downsides (well if you don't count jobs created and all that but that is a low bar since any unethical thing can create job). But ultimately you're not doing a fair comparison here.
- haswell 5y ago
  It's easy to conclude that now that we understand just how bad tobacco is. But if you rewind a bit, I think people would have said the upsides of smoking were: - It helps you relax and makes you feel good - Promotes socialization with the other smokers you know - Helps you look sophisticated / cool - I don't have the citation handy, but I recall seeing old advertising campaigns that touted all kinds of benefits Now we know that none of those perceived benefits matter since the more likely outcomes are severe health issues and death. Doesn't matter if it fosters community if that community will die because of it. The other part of the comparison that gets a bit messy is that the existence of social media isn't necessarily the primary issue - it's the application of engagement algorithms that prioritize specific types of content. That is what I'd argue has no inherent value (aside from monetary), or dubious value at best. I'm not saying this is the choice that must be made, but it is conceivable that the harm caused by the current state of the product is enough to mitigate the positive factors.
yodsanklai 5y ago
Big tobacco has caused millions of deaths. I'm yet to see any evidence that FB has caused harm. For instance, do you have data showing that there are more antivaxxers because of FB? Yes, antivaxxers discuss on the platform, so what? they would be discussing in cafes and at family meetings like they've always done. I do believe we need to use social medias with moderation, especially teenagers. However, I really have a hard time understanding why people are so angry with social medias companies as I don't really see any harm. On the other hand, many people like these platforms and I don't think it's for me to decide what they should be doing with their time.
- haswell 5y ago
  > Big tobacco has caused millions of deaths And if some of the allegations and concerns are correct, the current trajectory companies like Facebook are taking us on are poised to cause far worse. We've already seen Facebook used to facilitate genocide, and there are very concerning trends that indicate it's impacting how entire societies engage each other. It's forcing increased polarization in politics and resulting in extremist candidates. That good also exists is certainly important. But gauging the harm is not exactly straight forward, and we're only just beginning to understand the 2nd and 3rd order effects. > I'm yet to see any evidence that FB has caused harm. But that is quite literally the focus of the leaked research. There is growing evidence that the algorithmic prioritization of hateful/polarizing material is directly eroding the public's trust in civic institutions, and has facilitated the kind of mob mentality that led to the events of Jan 6 (for example). Again, the issue is not social media. The issue is the application of ranking algorithms that manipulate and amplify certain kinds of dialog on a global scale. Switching analogies, video games aren't inherently a bad thing. Microtransactions in video games aren't inherently a bad thing. Specific kinds of gamified microtransactions turn out to be strikingly similar to gambling, and are arguably extremely problematic. I’d argue this is similar to what's happening here. Social media isn't inherently bad, and in some cases is actually quite good. But if participating in social media automatically means that all of my worst tendencies are validated and amplified by the platform, the platform is no longer a neutral factor and instead has become actively harmful.
  - 5y ago

janed0pecod 5y ago

Except social media has a lot of upsides along with all the bad while the tobacco industries have literally none...only downsides (well if you don't count jobs created and all that but that is a low bar since any unethical thing can create job). But ultimately you're not doing a fair comparison here.

haswell 5y ago
It's easy to conclude that now that we understand just how bad tobacco is. But if you rewind a bit, I think people would have said the upsides of smoking were: - It helps you relax and makes you feel good - Promotes socialization with the other smokers you know - Helps you look sophisticated / cool - I don't have the citation handy, but I recall seeing old advertising campaigns that touted all kinds of benefits Now we know that none of those perceived benefits matter since the more likely outcomes are severe health issues and death. Doesn't matter if it fosters community if that community will die because of it. The other part of the comparison that gets a bit messy is that the existence of social media isn't necessarily the primary issue - it's the application of engagement algorithms that prioritize specific types of content. That is what I'd argue has no inherent value (aside from monetary), or dubious value at best. I'm not saying this is the choice that must be made, but it is conceivable that the harm caused by the current state of the product is enough to mitigate the positive factors.

yodsanklai 5y ago

Big tobacco has caused millions of deaths. I'm yet to see any evidence that FB has caused harm. For instance, do you have data showing that there are more antivaxxers because of FB? Yes, antivaxxers discuss on the platform, so what? they would be discussing in cafes and at family meetings like they've always done. I do believe we need to use social medias with moderation, especially teenagers. However, I really have a hard time understanding why people are so angry with social medias companies as I don't really see any harm. On the other hand, many people like these platforms and I don't think it's for me to decide what they should be doing with their time.

haswell 5y ago
> Big tobacco has caused millions of deaths And if some of the allegations and concerns are correct, the current trajectory companies like Facebook are taking us on are poised to cause far worse. We've already seen Facebook used to facilitate genocide, and there are very concerning trends that indicate it's impacting how entire societies engage each other. It's forcing increased polarization in politics and resulting in extremist candidates. That good also exists is certainly important. But gauging the harm is not exactly straight forward, and we're only just beginning to understand the 2nd and 3rd order effects. > I'm yet to see any evidence that FB has caused harm. But that is quite literally the focus of the leaked research. There is growing evidence that the algorithmic prioritization of hateful/polarizing material is directly eroding the public's trust in civic institutions, and has facilitated the kind of mob mentality that led to the events of Jan 6 (for example). Again, the issue is not social media. The issue is the application of ranking algorithms that manipulate and amplify certain kinds of dialog on a global scale. Switching analogies, video games aren't inherently a bad thing. Microtransactions in video games aren't inherently a bad thing. Specific kinds of gamified microtransactions turn out to be strikingly similar to gambling, and are arguably extremely problematic. I’d argue this is similar to what's happening here. Social media isn't inherently bad, and in some cases is actually quite good. But if participating in social media automatically means that all of my worst tendencies are validated and amplified by the platform, the platform is no longer a neutral factor and instead has become actively harmful.
- 5y ago