6 ms·

You could have said the same thing about cigarette companies half a century ago.

by bcrosby95 5y ago

oarabbus_ 5y ago
And Philip Morris/Altria Group has vastly grown in size since half a century ago. It seems you are proving their point?
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- kaesar14 5y ago
  Is that true for domestic sales?
- munk-a 5y ago
  They have - though they've diversified domestically in a significant way and while cigarettes (and vaping!) is still a major societal problem it's not nearly as bad as it was in the 80's and earlier.
- r00fus 5y ago
  While cigarettes are no longer a threat to societal health. We have monitoring programs in place, insurance costs (smokers pay higher premiums) factored, and ways to prevent our kids from being marketed to. The alternative is we go the banhammer route, and as we learned with prohibition era, that had unintended/undesirable consequences.
  - Alex3917 5y ago
    > The alternative is we go the banhammer route, and as we learned with prohibition era, that had unintended/undesirable consequences. Prohibition never banned a specific delivery mechanism but not the actual drug, so it's never been tried.
    - midasuni 5y ago
      Weed was banned for a significant time
  - oarabbus_ 5y ago
    >While cigarettes are no longer a threat to societal health. Cigarettes are the leading cause of preventable death in the USA (even moreso in countries where smoking is far more accepted widespread) so I don't believe this to be even remotely true.
dcgudeman 5y ago
You really think Facebook is the equivalent of Big Tobacco? This moral panic is really reaching a feverish crescendo.
- munk-a 5y ago
  I think Big Tobacco is still worse but honestly? The extreme radicalism we're seeing in our modern society is pretty terrible - I just don't think it's fair to blame all of that radicalism on Facebook, even if it has played a role in nurturing it.
  - AnimalMuppet 5y ago
    It wasn't fair to blame all of cancer on Big Tobacco, either.
  - dntrkv 5y ago
    > The extreme radicalism What do you think FB's role is in that? Do you think the "algorithms" are to blame? Seems to me that unmoderated online discussion will always be toxic. Take a look at the chan forums for an extreme, anonymous version of social media where there are no algorithms to blame. When you bring the general public online and give them a platform to voice their insane ideas they never discussed before, you get the internet in 2021. Combine that with the fact that until recently, people on the opposite sides of the political spectrum rarely interacted. The division was there, but it was masked by the inability to directly attack each other. Now, I can go on Twitter and argue all day with the other side in a thread below a Senator's tweet. Unless you are suggesting Facebook begin heavily moderating what people say, there will be no other outcome until we as a society collectively learn to 1. Have empathy for others when conversing online, 2. Stop participating in discussions that make you feel terrible, and the classic, 3. Don't believe everything you read online.
  - marvin 5y ago
    I'm fairly confident that widespread internet-based multicast communication is almost solely responsible for many of the profoundly weird things that have happened in global politics for the last six years. It's a very powerful new tool for communication that has hit very fast and without enough time for society to adapt to the change. A textbook example of accelerating technological change throwing a monkey wrench into what seemed to be a well-oiled machine. It's fair enough to say that Facebook is only responsible for a significant part of this, as there's also Twitter, YouTube, Instagram (pre-acquisition), Snapchat, TikTok and so on, and there would be others if these did not exist. The root cause is smartphones, the Internet and cheap bandwidth & servers. But in the context of regulation, finding out how to deal with this new weapon of communication, starting with a case study of the biggest seems like an excellent beginning. I honestly think unregulated social media has the potential to do more damage than unregulated tobacco sales, if by regulation we mean "government-enforced rules". But I don't mean to frame it as a context; it seems obvious that both are a good idea.

You could have said the same thing about cigarette companies half a century ago.

oarabbus_ 5y ago

And Philip Morris/Altria Group has vastly grown in size since half a century ago. It seems you are proving their point?

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
kaesar14 5y ago
Is that true for domestic sales?
munk-a 5y ago
They have - though they've diversified domestically in a significant way and while cigarettes (and vaping!) is still a major societal problem it's not nearly as bad as it was in the 80's and earlier.
r00fus 5y ago
While cigarettes are no longer a threat to societal health. We have monitoring programs in place, insurance costs (smokers pay higher premiums) factored, and ways to prevent our kids from being marketed to. The alternative is we go the banhammer route, and as we learned with prohibition era, that had unintended/undesirable consequences.
- Alex3917 5y ago
  > The alternative is we go the banhammer route, and as we learned with prohibition era, that had unintended/undesirable consequences. Prohibition never banned a specific delivery mechanism but not the actual drug, so it's never been tried.
  - midasuni 5y ago
    Weed was banned for a significant time
- oarabbus_ 5y ago
  >While cigarettes are no longer a threat to societal health. Cigarettes are the leading cause of preventable death in the USA (even moreso in countries where smoking is far more accepted widespread) so I don't believe this to be even remotely true.

dcgudeman 5y ago

You really think Facebook is the equivalent of Big Tobacco? This moral panic is really reaching a feverish crescendo.

munk-a 5y ago
I think Big Tobacco is still worse but honestly? The extreme radicalism we're seeing in our modern society is pretty terrible - I just don't think it's fair to blame all of that radicalism on Facebook, even if it has played a role in nurturing it.
- AnimalMuppet 5y ago
  It wasn't fair to blame all of cancer on Big Tobacco, either.
- dntrkv 5y ago
  > The extreme radicalism What do you think FB's role is in that? Do you think the "algorithms" are to blame? Seems to me that unmoderated online discussion will always be toxic. Take a look at the chan forums for an extreme, anonymous version of social media where there are no algorithms to blame. When you bring the general public online and give them a platform to voice their insane ideas they never discussed before, you get the internet in 2021. Combine that with the fact that until recently, people on the opposite sides of the political spectrum rarely interacted. The division was there, but it was masked by the inability to directly attack each other. Now, I can go on Twitter and argue all day with the other side in a thread below a Senator's tweet. Unless you are suggesting Facebook begin heavily moderating what people say, there will be no other outcome until we as a society collectively learn to 1. Have empathy for others when conversing online, 2. Stop participating in discussions that make you feel terrible, and the classic, 3. Don't believe everything you read online.
- marvin 5y ago
  I'm fairly confident that widespread internet-based multicast communication is almost solely responsible for many of the profoundly weird things that have happened in global politics for the last six years. It's a very powerful new tool for communication that has hit very fast and without enough time for society to adapt to the change. A textbook example of accelerating technological change throwing a monkey wrench into what seemed to be a well-oiled machine. It's fair enough to say that Facebook is only responsible for a significant part of this, as there's also Twitter, YouTube, Instagram (pre-acquisition), Snapchat, TikTok and so on, and there would be others if these did not exist. The root cause is smartphones, the Internet and cheap bandwidth & servers. But in the context of regulation, finding out how to deal with this new weapon of communication, starting with a case study of the biggest seems like an excellent beginning. I honestly think unregulated social media has the potential to do more damage than unregulated tobacco sales, if by regulation we mean "government-enforced rules". But I don't mean to frame it as a context; it seems obvious that both are a good idea.