3 ms·

There is no amount of tobacco, and probably no amount of alcohol, that has any health benefits. It's completely toxic. What you're advocating is more like sugg

There is no amount of tobacco, and probably no amount of alcohol, that has any health benefits. It's completely toxic. What you're advocating is more like suggesting we might also consider putting labels on cheese about the risk of eating too much saturated fat, or heck, a warning on most green vegetables for people taking Coumadin and other blood thinners. The warning labels anyway are not placed on these things you mention on the basis of addictive qualities.

unethical_ban 5y ago
Please cite the health benefits of doomscrolling twitter, playing candy crush for hours, etc. etc. If it is proven that these companies have internal research acknowledging negative psychological effects of this addictive behavior, and ignored it and the widespread social damage it does (the social media specifically, not candy crush), then it would be as big a bombshell as the tobacco industry in the 2000s. So I disagree on your distinction in the first line. I would use the example of putting warning labels on sugary foods and soda more than I would about cheese. Why? Because I disagree with your final line, too. Cigarettes wouldn't be such a problem if they weren't proven to be addictive. It's precisely because they are so habit forming and unhealthy that warnings are necessary. TLDR: The thesis here is that Facebook has internal documents acknowledging that the system they have created has negative psychological and societal consequences, they know it, and choose to obfuscate it rather than eliminate it. As more information comes out, it doesn't seem unreasonable for governments to step in and at least have public awareness campaigns on the dangers of social media overuse. It will be tough because it's not as clean cut as "this is your brain on drugs", but it is necessary. And finally... I don't know how we do it as easily with traditional media, but we collectively have to recognize the patterns of rage-bait and journalistic malfeasance that cable news is the leader in committing, especially Fox. The more traditional "news" label being applied to them, government intervention is a much trickier thing, so it may be more wise to come at it from a different angle.

unethical_ban 5y ago

Please cite the health benefits of doomscrolling twitter, playing candy crush for hours, etc. etc. If it is proven that these companies have internal research acknowledging negative psychological effects of this addictive behavior, and ignored it and the widespread social damage it does (the social media specifically, not candy crush), then it would be as big a bombshell as the tobacco industry in the 2000s. So I disagree on your distinction in the first line. I would use the example of putting warning labels on sugary foods and soda more than I would about cheese. Why? Because I disagree with your final line, too. Cigarettes wouldn't be such a problem if they weren't proven to be addictive. It's precisely because they are so habit forming and unhealthy that warnings are necessary. TLDR: The thesis here is that Facebook has internal documents acknowledging that the system they have created has negative psychological and societal consequences, they know it, and choose to obfuscate it rather than eliminate it. As more information comes out, it doesn't seem unreasonable for governments to step in and at least have public awareness campaigns on the dangers of social media overuse. It will be tough because it's not as clean cut as "this is your brain on drugs", but it is necessary. And finally... I don't know how we do it as easily with traditional media, but we collectively have to recognize the patterns of rage-bait and journalistic malfeasance that cable news is the leader in committing, especially Fox. The more traditional "news" label being applied to them, government intervention is a much trickier thing, so it may be more wise to come at it from a different angle.