3 ms·

This is an extraordinarily generous and almost child-like perspective on business. You're correct that McDonald's doesn't hold a gun to your head and make you

This is an extraordinarily generous and almost child-like perspective on business. You're correct that McDonald's doesn't hold a gun to your head and make you fat. That doesn't mean McDonald's plays no role in making you fat. As with everything, there are many compounding factors that contribute to an outcome. If McDonald's only sold, say, kale salads, would you gain the same amount of weight? No, right? So therefore, McDonald's must have some hand in making people fat. Again, I circle back to Tobacco because nicotine is plainly addictive, but do you truly believe that the Tobacco industry had nothing to do with societal smoking? That's rhetorical, I know you don't believe that because it's so obviously incorrect. While social media does not contain nicotine, how confident are you that it is not addictive? For me, I'm not very confident. > but wouldn’t they have fallen for some other thing if not Facebook? There is lots of shit out there on the radio, TV, books, cults And instead of smoking, could those people have just gotten addicted to sunflower seeds? Well, why didn't they? Because the nature of the medium and product matters. Social media is always immediately available. It features bright colors. And it's extraordinarily fast-paced. Compare that to a book - and it should be obvious why people are addicted to Facebook and not To Kill a Mockingbird.

FredPret 2y ago
1. Don’t be a dick. We come down on different sides of this - don’t assume people who don’t agree with you are being children. 2. To the extent that FB is addictive, it should be treated the same as alcohol and tobacco as I noted earlier. Restrictions on young people. A cultural movement to regard use/overuse as uncool. Meta has been a huge positive for me and many others; just because you hate it doesn’t make it fundamentally bad.
- consteval 2y ago
  Such an innocent and naive view can only be described as child-like. I was under the impression only a small child could legitimately believe businesses don't have the intention of maintaining the addictive practices that keep them profitable. Otherwise, why have we never seen nicotine-free cigarettes? Consider: if McDonald's had the power, right now, to rid the world of Ozempic - would they? I think absolutely they would. > Restrictions on young people. A cultural movement to regard use/overuse as uncool These are rather vague and not really how things have gone historically. Smoking stopped working because every doctor was telling you it would kill you. And then it became very, very hard to smoke. You couldn't smoke just about anywhere in public. And then you couldn't even smoke in your rental car, or apartment, or hotel. If you could only access Facebook in the confines of a property you own, I imagine it's use would plummet. I don't think a "cultural movement" could do that. Especially when such a cultural movement would need to take place ON Facebook. Because it's a platform.
  - FredPret 2y ago
    > Such an innocent and naive view can only be described as child-like. I was under the impression only a small child could legitimately believe businesses don't have the intention of maintaining the addictive practices that keep them profitable. Bye bye.
    - consteval 2y ago
      In my defense, I think just about any adult on Earth would have said exactly what I said. Not sure if that makes you feel better or not. To clear up why I'm so blunt about these things - there's a large influx of people who knowingly play stupid, and it's exhausting. What you're arguing is so obviously wrong and not even remotely in-tune with reality that I must assume you're either playing stupid or are really just that naive. Most likely you're a smart person with a brain capable of deducing even simple logic like "make them money = they continue practices". So you're probably just playing stupid, which I don't care for. "Know nothing" types aren't worth arguing with.
      - Jerrrrrrry 2y ago
        There is no more data to feed. The agents are prodding us for RLHF.
conorjh 2y ago
[dead]

FredPret 2y ago

1. Don’t be a dick. We come down on different sides of this - don’t assume people who don’t agree with you are being children. 2. To the extent that FB is addictive, it should be treated the same as alcohol and tobacco as I noted earlier. Restrictions on young people. A cultural movement to regard use/overuse as uncool. Meta has been a huge positive for me and many others; just because you hate it doesn’t make it fundamentally bad.

consteval 2y ago
Such an innocent and naive view can only be described as child-like. I was under the impression only a small child could legitimately believe businesses don't have the intention of maintaining the addictive practices that keep them profitable. Otherwise, why have we never seen nicotine-free cigarettes? Consider: if McDonald's had the power, right now, to rid the world of Ozempic - would they? I think absolutely they would. > Restrictions on young people. A cultural movement to regard use/overuse as uncool These are rather vague and not really how things have gone historically. Smoking stopped working because every doctor was telling you it would kill you. And then it became very, very hard to smoke. You couldn't smoke just about anywhere in public. And then you couldn't even smoke in your rental car, or apartment, or hotel. If you could only access Facebook in the confines of a property you own, I imagine it's use would plummet. I don't think a "cultural movement" could do that. Especially when such a cultural movement would need to take place ON Facebook. Because it's a platform.
- FredPret 2y ago
  > Such an innocent and naive view can only be described as child-like. I was under the impression only a small child could legitimately believe businesses don't have the intention of maintaining the addictive practices that keep them profitable. Bye bye.
  - consteval 2y ago
    In my defense, I think just about any adult on Earth would have said exactly what I said. Not sure if that makes you feel better or not. To clear up why I'm so blunt about these things - there's a large influx of people who knowingly play stupid, and it's exhausting. What you're arguing is so obviously wrong and not even remotely in-tune with reality that I must assume you're either playing stupid or are really just that naive. Most likely you're a smart person with a brain capable of deducing even simple logic like "make them money = they continue practices". So you're probably just playing stupid, which I don't care for. "Know nothing" types aren't worth arguing with.
    - Jerrrrrrry 2y ago
      There is no more data to feed. The agents are prodding us for RLHF.

conorjh 2y ago

[dead]